...🥰this is so amazing, and covers, many aspects of spirituality, that I am trying to achieve..Thank you Alan Watts 💜 and thanks to those posting these talks!!! 😉👍🏻
I don't claim to be an expert, but I have a lot of respect for Watts and don't want to misrepresent him. There are lots of subtle hints and some obvious things to help distinguish an audio files authenticity. I record a lot of music and subtle things like frequency of the dead air being consistent throughout. It isn't hard to run a filter to enhance that dead air and you will hear the difference, like a place where you paused when recording on old magnetic tape. AI voice emulation is good but Watts was just too expressive and apt to take side roads in his lectures which sets a pace and a range of expression that if Ai could replicate it, it would take a lot of time to generate things like a good gut laugh, and to manually edit the pace of speech to make it believable. So far AI Watts voices sound like he is reading a ransom letter into a camer held by an economically saavy abductor, or like he was being forced to read it but wanted to be obvious to the listener that he was not enjoying himself.
Even if it was AI, it’s the message that counts? Yeah but we don’t want to waste our time listening to figure out if the message was Alan Watt’s wisdom, rather than some bullshit message written by an idiot.
I don't believe so. I could be wrong, but I am pretty good at picking out AI generated voices and I don't post anything if I even slightly suspect it is not authentic. I had in the past used some music production tricks to bring the treble down and make his voice more pleasant on headphones, but I was asked if it was AI so I don't even do anything like that. Watts is especially easy to pick out when it is AI generated speech, and there are several channels that only do that and it's painfully obvious. I look for the pacing of delivery, um and uh's (which Watt's was prone to because he was unscripted), and the variance in tone of expression A(i)llan Watts speaks fast, expressionless, and economically, as in ideas aren't very well explored. At times you can hear shuffling and the odd cough, but I do think it is possible this was ran through Moises or something similar to isolate the voice as there seems to be audio track bleed from like frequencies. This lecture also has a copyright on that predates the technology. I didn't use the first lecture in the series because someone sped up the recording, probably trying to duck the copyright. Again, I can't be positive because I didn't physically record it, but I respect Watts too much to knowingly put words in his mouth. I don't know how far you listened but I just heard stuff around the 33 minute mark that I think validates my assertion. Don't stop calling out potential A(i)llan Watts videos. From what I have seen on generated Watts, half the comments are from people who were duped, or were planted by the channel to try and authenticate through consensus. I came across one and the person who posted it said they were positive that it wasn't and I told them what I told you. Instead of a response they pulled the video. The best one yet had Watts talking about Michael Phelps lol.
Definitely not. Yesterday when I replied to the same thing but I expressed that I was pretty sure but not certain. It was recorded in 1967 as a part of a four part series. I searched it based on the copyright ID. You can purchase the extended 4 part series from the Alan Watts website. This is part 2 of the 4.. alanwatts.com/products/the-future-seminar-series?srsltid=AfmBOopFCBqLo9gPoi85m56ZgjZZiDInOzJooLLNDx4q85zb6dRuoyK_
...🥰this is so amazing, and covers, many aspects of spirituality, that I am trying to achieve..Thank you Alan Watts 💜 and thanks to those posting these talks!!! 😉👍🏻
I have listened to MANY HOURS of Alan Watts. This is his voice NOT AI. And no big deal if it was AI. It’s the message that counts.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I have a lot of respect for Watts and don't want to misrepresent him. There are lots of subtle hints and some obvious things to help distinguish an audio files authenticity. I record a lot of music and subtle things like frequency of the dead air being consistent throughout. It isn't hard to run a filter to enhance that dead air and you will hear the difference, like a place where you paused when recording on old magnetic tape. AI voice emulation is good but Watts was just too expressive and apt to take side roads in his lectures which sets a pace and a range of expression that if Ai could replicate it, it would take a lot of time to generate things like a good gut laugh, and to manually edit the pace of speech to make it believable. So far AI Watts voices sound like he is reading a ransom letter into a camer held by an economically saavy abductor, or like he was being forced to read it but wanted to be obvious to the listener that he was not enjoying himself.
Even if it was AI, it’s the message that counts? Yeah but we don’t want to waste our time listening to figure out if the message was Alan Watt’s wisdom, rather than some bullshit message written by an idiot.
🐘💛💛💛💛🐘
Been listening to watts for 20 years, this isn't ai.
Primero
AI
I don't believe so. I could be wrong, but I am pretty good at picking out AI generated voices and I don't post anything if I even slightly suspect it is not authentic. I had in the past used some music production tricks to bring the treble down and make his voice more pleasant on headphones, but I was asked if it was AI so I don't even do anything like that. Watts is especially easy to pick out when it is AI generated speech, and there are several channels that only do that and it's painfully obvious. I look for the pacing of delivery, um and uh's (which Watt's was prone to because he was unscripted), and the variance in tone of expression A(i)llan Watts speaks fast, expressionless, and economically, as in ideas aren't very well explored. At times you can hear shuffling and the odd cough, but I do think it is possible this was ran through Moises or something similar to isolate the voice as there seems to be audio track bleed from like frequencies. This lecture also has a copyright on that predates the technology. I didn't use the first lecture in the series because someone sped up the recording, probably trying to duck the copyright. Again, I can't be positive because I didn't physically record it, but I respect Watts too much to knowingly put words in his mouth. I don't know how far you listened but I just heard stuff around the 33 minute mark that I think validates my assertion. Don't stop calling out potential A(i)llan Watts videos. From what I have seen on generated Watts, half the comments are from people who were duped, or were planted by the channel to try and authenticate through consensus. I came across one and the person who posted it said they were positive that it wasn't and I told them what I told you. Instead of a response they pulled the video. The best one yet had Watts talking about Michael Phelps lol.
@ArtofZentrification I agee. Definitely not ai. Background noise, audience laughter, the little stutter and delay in his delivery at times
AI
Definitely not. Yesterday when I replied to the same thing but I expressed that I was pretty sure but not certain. It was recorded in 1967 as a part of a four part series. I searched it based on the copyright ID. You can purchase the extended 4 part series from the Alan Watts website. This is part 2 of the 4..
alanwatts.com/products/the-future-seminar-series?srsltid=AfmBOopFCBqLo9gPoi85m56ZgjZZiDInOzJooLLNDx4q85zb6dRuoyK_