The Machines Are Calling: Measuring Automated and Synthetic Voices in Unwanted Inbound Calls
Voice honeypot measurement finds at least 26.9% of unwanted US inbound calls open with machine voices, 13.1% with fresh synthetic speech.
An interactive voice honeypot using language-model personas on real US numbers recorded 10,987 calls over 66 days, following the FCC's February 2024 ruling that AI-generated voices fall under the TCPA. Of 7,233 greeted calls, 13.8% opened with recordings replayed from other calls and 13.1% with fresh audio labeled synthetic, with replays making up 45% of the detector's flagged rate. Synthetic openings concentrated in lead-generation spam (33.8%) rather than fraud (21.1%), and only 0.44% of calls disclosed automation. Prevalence tracked how long a bait number had circulated, and campaigns outlasted their numbers, with one synthetic voice serving nine campaigns.
- At least 26.9% of unwanted call openings are machine-voiced; 9.9% more are silent connections
- Replayed recordings make up 45% of the synthetic detector's flagged rate
- Synthetic openings concentrate in lead generation (33.8%) over fraud (21.1%)
- Only 0.44% of calls disclose automation
- Seeding history, not calendar time, explains prevalence trends
Full article303 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse
In February 2024 the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) placed AI-generated voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Yet no peer-reviewed measurement says how much unwanted call traffic is placed by a machine, or how much of that machine speech is synthesized rather than played from a recording. We report both with a disclosed pipeline. An interactive voice honeypot (language-model personas on real U.S. numbers, the caller recorded on its own track) recorded 10,987 calls over 66 days; 11 days on which our stack answered silently are set aside. Three instruments read each opening: an audio fingerprint that finds the same recording played on other calls, a commercial synthetic-speech detector on the caller's first ten seconds, and blinded listeners who check what it flags. Of the 7,233 calls our persona greeted on normal days, 13.8% open with a recording we also heard on another call, and 13.1% with fresh audio the detector labels synthetic. A further 9.9% open with a caller who never spoke after our greeting, 54.2% with fresh audio the detector labels human, and 9.0% could not be scored. Machine-voiced openings are therefore at least 26.9%, a further tenth of calls are silent connections we read as machine-placed, and replays of a recording make up 45% of the detector's own rate (29.3% of 6,192 scored openings). The same waveform played on two calls lands on opposite sides of the detector's threshold 13.6% of the time, and eleven listeners confirm 54.4% of what it flags. Synthetic openings concentrate in lead-generation spam (33.8%), not fraud (21.1%); 0.44% disclose automation. Prevalence tracks how long a bait number has circulated (59% against 19% in the same weeks): seeding history, not calendar time, explains the trend. Campaigns outlast their numbers: one recorded compliance notice opens calls in six campaigns, and one synthetic voice serves nine.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11137