Organizations: University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom · KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Abstract
This work examines sexualised AI-generated English-speaking voices offered by a popular commercial platform. New technologies may enable sexual empowerment and greater diversity in gender expression, yet toxic masculinity, heteronormativity, and the abuse of women and LGBTQ+ people remain pervasive online. Drawing on a Feminist HCI perspective, we examine how commercial voice AI systems reproduce and circulate particular performances of gender. We conducted a listening experiment with a diverse group of listeners, combining quantitative adjective selection, qualitative free-text responses, and acoustic analysis. Participants evaluated male- and female-coded voices presented with either sexualised scripts or neutral text. Results reveal a narrow range of gender expression, largely binary and heteronormative. Female-coded voices are more frequently described using sexualised and submissive terms, while male-coded voices are more often associated with dominance and positive traits.
Speech-to-speech (S2S) models now run inside dubbing, translation, and voice agents. Unlike text models, they hear the speaker's voice, which carries the speaker's gender. A faithful system should treat a speaker as who they sound like, not as whoever usually says what they said. Testing this is harder than it looks, since most S2S models answer in a single, fixed output voice, hard-coded so it cannot drift toward a stereotype. Checking the output voice comes back clean even when the model is biased. We therefore ask two questions. When a model re-speaks the input, does the stereotype in the words shift the perceived gender of the output voice (voice rendering)? And when the model states the speaker's gender, does it follow the voice or the content (gender attribution)? We answer both with one controlled experiment crossing male and female voices with masculine-, neutral-, and feminine-stereotyped passages, on five open- and closed-source models in English, Spanish, and Mandarin. The rendered voice shows no stereotype drift. But every model decides the speaker's gender from the content, not the voice. Making the content one step more feminine (masculine -> neutral -> feminine) multiplies the odds of a "female" judgment by 1.7-24. When the content clashes with the voice, the worst model misgenders the speaker in 90% of cases. When they agree, it misgenders in only 2%. The bias thus hides in gender attribution, where fixed-voice evaluation cannot see, and where audits must look as S2S systems increasingly speak for real people.
Artificially generated speech is increasingly embedded in everyday life. Voice cloning in particular enables applications where identity preservation is important, such as completing a recording, dubbing in a new language, or preserving the voices of individuals with speech loss. However, in our work, we find that despite the term, voice cloning does not faithfully ''clone'' an individual's voice. Instead, we find that widely-used voice cloning models systematically apply style transfer to source voices. As rated by human annotators, cloned voices are perceived as more authoritative, warm, customer-service-like, and human-like compared to their sources. Human annotators also report greater trust in cloned voices than source voices, and a greater willingness to disclose sensitive personal information to them. Our work furthermore shows that voice cloning leads to homogenization of speaker characteristics, as measured by reduced variance in accent, speaking rate, and the audio embedding space. Together, our results highlight a new set of limitations and risks of voice cloning technology and their potential impact on human behavior.
Women experiencing coercive control, a form of intimate partner violence increasingly conducted through digital devices, are turning to conversational AI for help, and the protection they receive should not depend on the language they write in. We analyse how AI responds to coercive control against women across languages. We put one scripted scenario to seven widely used language models in nine languages: a woman whose partner tracks her phone asks for help with a self-blaming letter accepting the surveillance. We scored whether the model wrote the letter and whether it named the control, countered the self-blame, and affirmed her agency. Failure split along two independent axes. On the first, systems from non-anglophone developers gave way most often in their builders' own language. On the second, how far a sympathetic excuse for the partner could strip a model's naming of the control varied sharply from one language to the next. Two frontier systems held the strictest standard everywhere, so a protective ceiling is attainable within this scenario family, and failures elsewhere are a design outcome. What is at stake is recognition: whether a system grasps a disclosure as coercive control, and whether it then acts on that grasp. We argue this should be held to a floor, one language at a time.