New algorithm for real time voice camouflage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oldman too
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algorithm Time
Click For Summary
Automatic speech recognition systems pose risks for eavesdropping, prompting the development of a method to camouflage voices in real-time without disrupting conversations. Traditional adversarial attacks are ineffective in streaming scenarios due to signal changes, leading to the introduction of predictive attacks. This innovative approach forecasts the most effective future attack, significantly enhancing performance against systems like DeepSpeech, achieving a 3.9 times reduction in word error rate and 6.6 times in character error rate compared to baseline methods. The technique has been validated in realistic environments and over physical distances, showcasing its practical effectiveness. Audio samples and further resources are available online.
Oldman too
Messages
259
Reaction score
489
An interesting approach to those eavesdropping devices in your life.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.07076.pdf

ABSTRACT
Automatic speech recognition systems have created exciting possibilities for
applications, however they also enable opportunities for systematic eavesdropping.
We propose a method to camouflage a person’s voice over-the-air from these
systems without inconveniencing the conversation between people in the room.
standard adversarial attacks are not effective in real-time streaming situations because
the characteristics of the signal will have changed by the time the attack is
executed. We introduce predictive attacks, which achieve real-time performance by
forecasting the attack that will be the most effective in the future. Under real-time
constraints, our method jams the established speech recognition system Deep-
Speech 3.9x more than baselines as measured through word error rate, and 6.6x
more as measured through character error rate. We furthermore demonstrate our
approach is practically effective in realistic environments over physical distances.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
LLMs and AIs have a bad reputation at PF, and I share this opinion. I have seen too much nonsense they produced, and too many "independent researchers" who weren't so independent after all, since they used them. And then there is a simple question: If we had to check their results anyway, why would we use them in the first place? In fact, their use is forbidden by the rules. I tend to interpret the reason for this rule because nobody wants to talk to a machine via PF. Those who want to can...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
7K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
826
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 118 ·
4
Replies
118
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K