Lifeboat Foundation

In what has become a familiar refrain when discussing artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies, voice cloning makes possible beneficial advances in accessibility and creativity while also enabling increasingly sophisticated scams and deepfakes. To combat the potential negative impacts of voice cloning technology, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) challenged researchers and technology experts to develop breakthrough ideas on preventing, monitoring and evaluating malicious voice cloning.

Ning Zhang, an assistant professor of computer science and engineering in the McKelvey School of Engineering at Washington University in St. Louis, was one of three winners of the FTC’s Voice Cloning Challenge announced April 8. Zhang explained his winning project, DeFake, which deploys a kind of watermarking for voice recordings. DeFake embeds carefully crafted distortions that are imperceptible to the human ear into recordings, making criminal cloning more difficult by eliminating usable voice samples.

“DeFake uses a technique of adversarial AI that was originally part of the cybercriminals’ toolbox, but now we’re using it to defend against them,” Zhang said. “Voice cloning relies on the use of pre-existing speech samples to clone a voice, which are generally collected from social media and other platforms. By perturbing the recorded audio signal just a little bit, just enough that it still sounds right to human listeners, but it’s completely different to AI, DeFake obstructs cloning by making criminally synthesized speech sound like other voices, not the intended victim.”

In the ongoing quest to make electronic devices ever smaller and more energy efficient, researchers want to bring energy storage directly onto microchips, reducing the losses incurred when power is transported between various device components. To be effective, on-chip energy storage must be able to store a large amount of energy in a very small space and deliver it quickly when needed—requirements that can’t be met with existing technologies.

Polymer changes temperature, shape when charged, moving to where the heat needs to be.

Simulated effects of microgravity significantly affect rhythmicity and sleep in humans, a new study from the University of Surrey finds. Such disturbances could negatively affect the physiology and performance of astronauts in space.

Discover the ChatGPT Prompt Generator, a user-friendly tool designed to create tailored prompts for OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

Unlike CAR-T-cell therapy, experimental CAR-NK treatments could potentially be used off-the-shelf against many cancers. But finding the right source of NK cells is vital.

Genes inherited from Denisovans, extinct human relatives, may help Papua New Guineans in the lowlands fight off infection, while mutations to red blood cells may help highlanders live at altitude.

Some people, like Sam Harris, say that science has values of its own. According to him, even a statement like “Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen” is value-laden. But I don’t think that it is value-laden, it is simply a factual statement. Perhaps demonstrating that statement to be true requires values, but that statement by itself is true whatever your values are. So, then, what have professional philosophers (besides Sam Harris) written or said about this matter, of whether science is value-free, and also whether even basic scientific statements are value-free?