skip to main content
10.1145/3630106.3658996acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Careless Whisper: Speech-to-Text Hallucination Harms

Published:05 June 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Speech-to-text services aim to transcribe input audio as accurately as possible. They increasingly play a role in everyday life, for example in personal voice assistants or in customer-company interactions. We evaluate Open AI’s Whisper, a state-of-the-art automated speech recognition service outperforming industry competitors, as of 2023. While many of Whisper’s transcriptions were highly accurate, we find that roughly 1% of audio transcriptions contained entire hallucinated phrases or sentences which did not exist in any form in the underlying audio. We thematically analyze the Whisper-hallucinated content, finding that 38% of hallucinations include explicit harms such as perpetuating violence, making up inaccurate associations, or implying false authority. We then study why hallucinations occur by observing the disparities in hallucination rates between speakers with aphasia (who have a lowered ability to express themselves using speech and voice) and a control group. We find that hallucinations disproportionately occur for individuals who speak with longer shares of non-vocal durations—a common symptom of aphasia. We call on industry practitioners to ameliorate these language-model-based hallucinations in Whisper, and to raise awareness of potential biases amplified by hallucinations in downstream applications of speech-to-text models.

References

  1. Kirrie J Ballard, Nicole M Etter, Songjia Shen, Penelope Monroe, and Chek Tien Tan. 2019. Feasibility of automatic speech recognition for providing feedback during tablet-based treatment for apraxia of speech plus aphasia. American journal of speech-language pathology 28, 2S (2019), 818–834.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Fairness in machine learning. Nips tutorial 1 (2017), 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2023. Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. David Frank Benson and Alfredo Ardila. 1996. Aphasia: A clinical perspective. Oxford University Press, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Hervé Bredin and Antoine Laurent. 2021. End-to-end speaker segmentation for overlap-aware resegmentation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021. Brno, Czech Republic.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Chris Code and Brian Petheram. 2011. Delivering for aphasia. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 13, 1 (Feb. 2011), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2010.520090Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Antonio R. Damasio. 1992. Aphasia. New England Journal of Medicine 326, 8 (Feb. 1992), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199202203260806Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Charles Ellis and Stephanie Urban. 2016. Age and aphasia: a review of presence, type, recovery and clinical outcomes. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 23, 6 (2016), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2016.1150412 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2016.1150412PMID: 26916396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Gunther Eysenbach. 2023. The Role of ChatGPT, Generative Language Models, and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Conversation With ChatGPT and a Call for Papers. JMIR Medical Education 9 (March 2023), e46885. https://doi.org/10.2196/46885Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Rita Frieske and Bertram E Shi. 2024. Hallucinations in Neural Automatic Speech Recognition: Identifying Errors and Hallucinatory Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01572 (2024).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham R Gibbs. 2007. Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing qualitative data 703 (2007), 38–56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. Comput. Surveys 55, 12 (2023), 1–38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Dietrich Klakow and Jochen Peters. 2002. Testing the correlation of word error rate and perplexity. Speech Communication 38, 1-2 (Sept. 2002), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6393(01)00041-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Allison Koenecke, Andrew Nam, Emily Lake, Joe Nudell, Minnie Quartey, Zion Mengesha, Connor Toups, John R Rickford, Dan Jurafsky, and Sharad Goel. 2020. Racial disparities in automated speech recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 14 (2020), 7684–7689.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Duc Le, Keli Licata, and Emily Mower Provost. 2018. Automatic quantitative analysis of spontaneous aphasic speech. Speech Communication 100 (2018), 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Duc Le and Emily Mower Provost. 2016. Improving Automatic Recognition of Aphasic Speech with AphasiaBank. In Proc. Interspeech 2016. 2681–2685. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2016-213Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Debbie Loakes. 2022. Does Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) Have a Role in the Transcription of Indistinct Covert Recordings for Forensic Purposes?Frontiers in Communication 7 (2022), 803452.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Julio C. Hidalgo Lopez, Shelly Sandeep, MaKayla Wright, Grace M. Wandell, and Anthony B. Law. 2023. Quantifying and Improving the Performance of Speech Recognition Systems on Dysphonic Speech. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 168, 5 (Jan. 2023), 1130–1138. https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.170Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. B. MacWhinney, D. Fromm, M. Forbes, and A. Holland. 2011. AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology 25 (2011), 1286–1307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. John Markoff. 2019. From Your Mouth to Your Screen, Transcribing Takes the Next Step. New York Times (October 2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Tara McAllister and Kirrie J Ballard. 2018. Bringing advanced speech processing technology to the clinical management of speech disorders., 581–582 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Robert McMillan. 2023. With AI, Hackers Can Simply Talk Computers Into Misbehaving. Wall Street Journal (August 2023).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Cade Metz, Cecilia Kang, Sheera Frenkel, Stuart A. Thompson, and Nico Grant. 2024. How Tech Giants Cut Corners to Harvest Data for A.I.New York Times (April 2024).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. OpenAI. 2023. GPT 3.5. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5. Accessed: 2023-11-25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. OpenAI. 2023. Speech to text. https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/speech-to-text. Accessed: 2023-11-25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, William Thong, Dora Zhao, Jerone Andrews, Rebecca Bourke, Alice Xiang, and Allison Koenecke. 2023. Augmented Datasheets for Speech Datasets and Ethical Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 881–904.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Alexis Plaquet and Hervé Bredin. 2023. Powerset multi-class cross entropy loss for neural speaker diarization. In Proc. INTERSPEECH 2023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Ying Qin, Tan Lee, Siyuan Feng, and Anthony Pak-Hin Kong. 2018. Automatic Speech Assessment for People with Aphasia Using TDNN-BLSTM with Multi-Task Learning.. In Interspeech. 3418–3422.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision. arXiv (2022). arXiv:arXiv:2212.04356Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Donald B Rubin. 1980. Bias reduction using Mahalanobis-metric matching. Biometrics (1980), 293–298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Prashant Serai, Vishal Sunder, and Eric Fosler-Lussier. 2022. Hallucination of Speech Recognition Errors With Sequence to Sequence Learning. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 30 (2022), 890–900. https://doi.org/10.1109/taslp.2022.3145313Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. David Sherfinski and Avi Asher-Schapiro. 2021. U.S. prisons mull AI to analyze inmate phone calls. Thomson Reuters Foundation News (August 2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Silero Team. 2021. Silero VAD: pre-trained enterprise-grade Voice Activity Detector (VAD), Number Detector and Language Classifier. https://github.com/snakers4/silero-vad.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. The New York City Council. 2021. A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to automated employment decision tools. https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decision-tools.page.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. US Department of Labor. 1990. Americans with Disabilities Act. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2008. The ADA: Your Responsibilities as an Employer. https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/ada-your-responsibilities-employer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Carolina Paula Vargas, Alejandro Gaiera, Andres Brandán, Alejandro Renato, Sonia Benitez, and Daniel Luna. 2024. Automatic Speech Recognition System to Record Progress Notes in a Mobile EHR: A Pilot Study.Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 310 (2024), 124–128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Careless Whisper: Speech-to-Text Hallucination Harms

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        FAccT '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
        June 2024
        2580 pages
        ISBN:9798400704505
        DOI:10.1145/3630106

        Copyright © 2024 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 5 June 2024

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format