Judging has commenced

The portal is closed. The entries are in. The judges have been equipped with headphones and score sheets. In other words: judging has officially begun.

For the next fortnight or so, the HackaCon panel will be working through the submissions against the four published criteria:

  • Voice similarity: how convincingly the voices match Agent Luke and Chris Nemesis
  • Naturalness: whether the speech and conversation actually sound like human beings talking to one another
  • Content: whether the required elements of the scenario made it into the conversation
  • Creative flair: all the clever, careful, unexpected things people have done to make their submission work

To take on this challenge, we have assembled an unnecessarily formidable collection of forensic speech scientists, conversation analysts, criminologists and forensic linguists.

Alongside the overall rankings, we’ll also be looking for the Special Category Prizes, designed to reward the best school submission, and submissions that achieve something particularly interesting, ingenious, ambitious or otherwise memorable.

So if you entered: thank you. Properly. We know how much work some of these submissions represent, and now we finally get to hear what you made.

Results and rankings will appear on the Scoreboard later this month.

Until then, please imagine five academics listening very intently to fake conversations between two people who do not exist.

Everything is normal.

Trust on the line…

Downton Abbey star Hugh Bonneville would quite like to keep his voice.

So would Nicola Coughlan, Siobhán McSweeney, Matt Lucas and dozens of other performers currently backing the UK-based Save Our Voices Now. This campaign is calling for stronger protection against the unauthorised cloning of people’s voices using AI.

At one level, this is a very individual problem. A voice is unusually personal. We use it to recognise people we know, decide who we trust, and work out who’s speaking even when we can’t see them. But for performers, it’s also a professional problem. Their voice can be their livelihood. And, of course, it can now be copied.

Across the UK we’re seeing a range of local and national initiatives to tackle this issue. On 8 September, Lancashire Constabulary launched Fake or Real? Know the Deal, a public-awareness campaign designed to help young people and families recognise and respond to AI-generated deepfakes. Importantly for us, Lancashire’s definition does not stop at manipulated photographs or video. It explicitly includes audio: clips made to sound as though somebody said something they never actually said.

The force has also published a Fake or Real? toolkit because being safe online is not about magically spotting every fake. It’s about the ordinary person – child or adult – knowing when to question what they’re seeing or hearing, checking sources, and understanding what to do when something feels wrong.

Climb one more rung, and the same problem becomes national. The Home Office Deepfake Detection Challenge has brought together government, law enforcement, national-security users, academics and technology companies to test how well current tools can distinguish real from synthetic media, including audio, under realistic, time-sensitive conditions.

That national work matters because this problem keeps evolving so swiftly. A recent Department for Science, Innovation and Technology review describes deepfake detection as still being at an early stage, with rapidly changing generation techniques continuing to challenge the tools intended to identify them.

So, from one person asking who owns their voice, to a local police force asking people to think harder about what is real, to the Home Office testing national detection capability, we keep arriving at the same awkward question:

What exactly are we trying to detect?

As we note elsewhere on this blog, cloning a voice is one thing. Making it say a sentence is another. But human conversation takes us into a third and arguably far more complex dimension.

Humans hesitate. We interrupt each other. We talk over one another. Mishear things. Repair ourselves halfway through a sentence. Repeat ourselves. Speed up. Slow down. Laugh. Breathe. Stall for time. Change direction. Repeat ourselves. Forget the other four things we were going to add into this list. And somehow coordinate all of this with another person in milliseconds.

So what happens when we ask AI to reproduce that?

That’s the problem at the heart of HackaCon. This isn’t just a task where you recreate the voices of Agent Luke and Chris Nemesis. That’s arguably the easy part. The real trick is making them have a convincing, spontaneous-sounding conversation that never actually happened.

Can you make the interaction feel natural? Can you reproduce the tiny timing decisions and irregularities that make two people sound as though they are genuinely responding to each other rather than taking turns reading some 1990s sitcom dialogue? And, perhaps most interestingly: what tells will give you away?

There are now just over two weeks left to find out. The HackaCon submission window closes at 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 30 September.

You don’t need a finished system before you begin. Try something. Break it. Listen closely. Change the timing. Add awkward bits. Edit them out. Discover which parts are surprisingly easy and which stubbornly refuse to sound human.

In other words: get playing, and good luck!

Data release countdown: 10 days to go

There are just ten days left until the reference samples are released. A quick reminder that you need to register and allow us the option to email you. (If we can’t do that, we can’t tell you where the samples are!)

On Wed 01st Jul, you’ll receive an email with a link and a password to access the reference samples. From there you can download them and get to work.

Prizes update

In case you’ve missed it, we now have a prize haul worth over £4,000. This includes Amazon vouchers, challenge coins, prize bags, and certificates.

There are two Scoreboards: Highest Ranked Prizes will be awarded to the top twenty submissions that achieve the highest overall score. Meanwhile, there will be five Special Category Prizes. The first Special Category Prize will awarded to the highest ranked submission from a school. (For our purposes, a school is defined in accordance with the Education Act 1997. The individual submitting must use their school email address and be aged 18 or over.) That makes it entirely plausible for a school to win both a Highest Ranked Prize and a Special Category Prize! The remaining Special Category Prizes will be awarded to four notable submissions that did not score highly enough overall to receive a Highest Ranked Prize, but that are otherwise worthy of recognition in some way. As this suggests, these four prizes are not set, but will emerge during judging.

If you want to know how we will score submissions, see The Criteria for more.

Data release countdown: 22 days to go

There are just three weeks left until the reference samples are released. A quick recap of the timeline:

  • 01st Jul: reference samples go live
  • 01st Aug: submission portal opens
  • 30th Sep: submission portal closes

How are the reference samples accessed?

You need to register and allow us the option to email you. Then, on Wed 01st Jul, you will receive an email that gives you a link and a password to access the reference samples. From there you can download them and get to work.

Any questions, don’t hesitate to ask: factor@lancaster.ac.uk.

Guess which one I am…

Globally, enormous sums of money are being thrown at generative AI, including methods of creation and of detection – but it’s fair to say that the majority is being steered towards, if not explicitly ring-fenced for STEM (science, technology, engineering, maths). Natural language processing and machine learning. Audio-engineering. Software and hardware development. Data science. If you’re in one of these fields, life probably looks very busy right now. Possibly even a little daunting.

However, HackaCon’s core point is that generating spontaneous, human-like conversations using AI fundamentally requires SHAPE (social sciences, humanities, and the arts for people and the economy). You’re going to need linguists. Creative writers. Psychologists. Sociologists. Philosophers. Historians.

Thankfully we have the inimitable Katherine Parkinson on hand to help illustrate this. Continue reading →