Hacker News Reader

Comment by lengyue233 | Hacker News Reader

The team behind Fish Speech, including rcell, stardust, and lengyue, who brought you So-VITS-SVC, Bert-VITS2, and GPT-SoVITS, has made incredible improvements in this release. Fish Speech 1.3 now offers enhanced stability and emotion, and can clone anyone's voice with just a 15-second audio prompt!

As strong advocates of the open-source community, we've open-sourced Fish Speech 1.2 SFT today and introduced an Auto Reranking system. And we'll be open-sourcing Fish Speech 1.3 soon!

Playground: http://fish.audio GitHub: https://github.com/fishaudio/fish-speech Blog Post: https://blogs.fish.audio/announcing-fish-speech-1-3-30417c28...

View on HN

> can clone anyone's voice with just a 15-second audio prompt!

How do you deal with the ethics of duplicating someone's voice where it can be misused and/or abused, potentially leading to serious legal, financial, or social consequences for the individual's voice that has been reproduced?

How do you deal with the ethics of duplicating someone's text where it can be reproduced? You probably treat text like it is not the real person until confirmed in other ways.

Welcome to the future where you'd have to update that trust and understanding around voice regardless or give that power of misunderstanding to the elite few.

do we have free will or it's a sequence-based model trigging all these lol

> You probably treat text like it is not the real person until confirmed in other ways.

I would appreciate if the question could be answered instead of avoided and misdirected.

You sound as if the only answer that would satisfy you is "we'll turn back the clock".

It's not going to happen. The only question is whether we're going to have open source solutions, visible to everyone, or whether this kind of thing is going to be available only from shady companies like Cellebrite.

> You sound as if the only answer that would satisfy you is "we'll turn back the clock".

There are methods to manage risk that don't involve turning back the clock. The open source creators /and/ shady companies have responsibility for the tooling they release, just like any other company has responsibility for any potential harm, be it to the environment, infrastructure, or the public that they create.

There are such things? Fine. Please go and use them to manage Cellebrite, then.

I'm not sure what kind of response this is, but it's unproductive and doesn't address anything I've said.

Yes, there are such things to manage risk, such as insurance. Open source maintainers aren't protected from legal scrutiny or civil suits simply because the software is open source.

Given the amount of false information spreading like wildfire on social media, one would think they would want to protect themselves as much as possible when releasing tooling such as this.

We should appreciate new abuse vectors becoming more well-known and releasing their stuff does help with that. What pranksters do with any new tech vs. public misunderstanding arbitrage comes down to the ethics of the prankster.

We have implemented a reporting system and regularly monitor for unauthorized celebrity voices on our platform. While the technology is available and open-sourced, similar tech exists in other research and open-source projects. We promptly remove any DMCA-violating content.

So it's opt-out instead of opt-in, where the damage could have already occurred? How does your team take responsibility for other's legal costs, etc.?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com