We’ve been talking about the death of the bicycle since the time of the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford.
But we still haven’t achieved it.
Wilbur Wright building a bicycle two centuries ago before he came to his senses. By Wright brothers – Library of Congress CALL NUMBER: LC-W85- 81 [P&P]REPRODUCTION NUMBER: LC-DIG-ppprs-00540 (digital file from original)LC-W851-81 (b&w film copy, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2217030
What will it take to make the death of the bicycle a reality?
Why does the bicycle need to die?
I think that all intelligent people agree that the bicycle needs to die. But just to be extra-cautious, I will again enumerate the reasons why the death of the bicycle is absolutely necessary.
By Photo by Adam Coppola. – Photo by Adam Coppola taken under contract for PeopleForBikes, released into the public domain with the consent of the subjects.[1][2], CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46251073
The bicycle is too slow. Perhaps the bicycle was suitable for 19th century life, but today it’s an embarrassment. The speed of the bicycle has long been surpassed by automobiles from the aforementioned Ford, and airplanes from the aforementioned Wrights. It poses a danger as slow-moving bicycle traffic risks getting hit by faster-moving vehicles, unless extraordinary measures are undertaken to separate bicycles from normal traffic. For this reason alone the bicycle must die.
The bicycle is too weak. If that weren’t enough, take a look at the weakness of the bicycle and the huge threat from this weakness. You can completely destroy the bicycle and its rider with a simple puddle of oil, a nail, or a misplaced brick that a bicycle hits. This is yet another reason why the bicycle must die.
The bicycle is too inefficient. Other factors of transportation are much better equipped to carry loads of people and goods. The bicycle? Forget it. Any attempt to carry a reasonable load of goods on a bicycle is doomed to failure.
The bicycle is too easy to steal. It takes some effort to steal other factors of transportation, but it is pitifully easy to steal a bike, or part of a bike.
Despite everyone knowing about these security and personal threats for years if not decades, use of the bicycle continues to persist.
And we have to put a stop to it.
Why does the bicycle continue to live?
The problem is that a few wrongheaded individuals continue to promote bicycle use in a misguided way.
Some of them argue that bicycles provide health benefits that you can’t realize with other factors of transportation. Any so-called health benefits are completely erased by the damage that could happen when a bicycle rider ends up face down on the pavement.
Others argue that you can mitigate the problems with bicycles by requiring riders to change to a new bicycle every 90 days. This is also misguided, because even if you do this, the threats from bicycle use continue to occur from day one.
Make sure your bicycle has a wheel, spokes, seat, and drink holder, and don’t use any of the last six bicycles you previously used. By Havang(nl) – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2327525
How do we solve this?
People have tried to hasten the death of the bicycle, but its use still persists.
We have continued to advance other factors of transportation, both from the efforts of vendors, as well as the efforts of industry associations such as the International Bus and Infiniti Association (IBIA) and the MANX (Moving At Necessary eXpress) Alliance.
Yet resistance persists. Even the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which should know better, continues to define bicycle use as a standard factor of transportation.
The three most recognized factors of transportation include “something you pedal” (such as a bicycle), “something you drive” (such as an automobile), and “something you ride” (such as a bus).
NIST Special Publication 800-8-2. Link unavailable.
It is imperative that both governments and businesses completely ban use of the bicycle in favor of other forms of transportation. Our security as a nation depends on this.
Do your part to bring about the death of the bicycle in favor of other factors of transportation, and ensure that we will enjoy a bicycleless future.
A personal note
I don’t agree with anything I just wrote.
Despite its faults, I still believe that the bicycle has a proper place in our society, perhaps as one of several factors of transportation in an MFT (multi-factor transportation) arrangement.
And, if you haven’t figure it out yet, I’m not on board with the complete death of the password either. Passwords (and PINs) have their place. And when used properly they’re not that bad (even if these 2021 figures are off by an order of magnitude today).
Feel free to share the images and interactive found on this page freely. When doing so, please attribute the authors by providing a link back to this page and Better Buys, so your readers can learn more about this project and the related research.
I’ve talked about why NIST separated its FRVT efforts into FRTE and FATE.
But I haven’t talked bout how NIST did this.
And as you all know, the second most important question after why is how.
Why the great renaming took place
As I noted back in August, NIST chose to split its Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) into two parts—FRTE (Face Recognition Technology Evaluation) and FATE (Face Analysis Technology Evaluation).
In essence, the Face Recognition Vendor Test had become a hodgepodge of different things. Some of the older tests were devoted to identification of individuals (face recognition), while some of the newer tests were looking at issues other than individual identification (face analysis).
Of course, this confusion between identification and non-identification is nothing new, which is why some of the people who read Gender Shades falsely concluded that if the three algorithms couldn’t classify people by sex or race, they couldn’t identify them as individuals.
But I digress. (I won’t do it again.)
NIST explained at the time:
Tracks that involve the processing and analysis of images will run under the FATE activity, and tracks that pertain to identity verification will run under FRTE.
To date, most of my personal attention (and probably most of yours) was paid to what was previously called FRVT 1:1 and FRVT 1:N.
These two tests are now part of FRTE, and were simply renamed to FRTE 1:1 and FRTE 1:N. They’ve even (for now) retained the same URLs, although that may change in the future.
Other tests that are now part of the FRTE bucket include:
The “Still Face and Iris 1:N Identification” effort (PDF) has apparently also been reclassified as an FRTE effort.
What is in FATE?
Obviously, presentation attack detection (PAD) testing falls into the FATE category, since this does not measure the identification of an individual, but whether a person is truly there or not. The first results have been released; I previously wrote about this here.
The next obvious category is age estimation testing, which again does not try to identify an individual, but estimate how old the person is. This testing has not yet started, but I talked about the concept of age estimation previously.
It is very possible that NIST will add additional FRTE and FATE tests in the future. These may be brand new tests, or variations of existing tests. For example, when all of us started wearing face masks a couple of years ago, NIST simulated face masks on its existing facial images and created the data for the face mask test described above.
What do you think NIST should test next, either in the FRTE or the FATE category?
More on morphing
And yes, I’m concluding this post with this video. By the way, this is the full version that (possibly intentionally) caused a ton of controversy and was immediately banned for nearly a quarter century. The morphing starts at 5:30. The crotch-grabbing starts right after the 7:00 mark.
Perhaps because of the lack of controversy with Godley & Creme’s earlier effort, Ashley Clark prefers it to the later Michael Jackson/John Landis effort.
Whereas Godley & Creme used editing technology to embrace and reflect the ambiguous murk of thwarted love, Jackson and Landis imposed an artificial sheen on the complexity of identity; a sheen that feels poignant if not outright tragic in the wake of Jackson’s ultimate appearance and fate. Really, it did matter if he was black or white.
One of the main application areas of facial morphing for criminal purposes is forging identity documents. The attack targets face-based identity verification systems and procedures. Most often it involves passports; however, any ID document with a photo can be compromised.
One well-known case happened in 2018 when a group of activists merged together a photo of Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and a member of their group. Using this morphed photo, they managed to obtain an authentic German passport.
The vast majority of people who visit the Bredemarket website arrive via Google. Others arrive via Bing, DuckDuckGo, Facebook, Feedspot, Instagram, LinkedIn, Meltwater, Twitter (WordPress’ Stats page didn’t get the memo from Elon), WordPress itself, and other sites.
Yes, people are using ChatGPT and other generative AI tools as search engines.
Patel was curious about why ChatGPT recommended Neil Patel Digital, and he started to investigate. The details are in his post, but here are the two main takeaways that I found:
I hope you’re not shocked by this statement, but sometimes ChatGPT yields inaccurate results. One example: Patel asked ChatGPT to recommend ad agencies who could provide SEO help, and received two inaccurate recommendations. “2 of the top 4 results… Moz and HubSpot are software companies and not ad agencies. They don’t really offer services.”
After a lot of experimentation and number-crunching, Patel identified six specific factors that correlated with ChatGPT’s recommendation of a particular brand: brand mentions, reviews, relevancy, age, recommendations, and authority.
For a detailed discussion of these six factors, see Patel’s post. Let’s look at one of those factors, brand mentions, that has a relatively high (0.87) correlation.
How do you increase brand mentions?
So, how do you increase brand mentions across the web to rank higher on ChatGPT, other generative AI platforms, and more traditional search engines like TikTok?
By mentioning your brand. (And getting relevant authorities to mention your brand also.)
Yes, this is a Captain Obvious statement, but it’s important. There are at least ten places where you can mention your brand.
Articles
Blog Posts
Briefs/Data/Literature Sheets
Case Studies
Proposals
Scientific Book Chapters
Smartphone Application Content
Social Media (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Threads, TikTok, Twitter)
Web Page Content
White Papers and E-Books
If this list appears familiar to some of you, that’s intentional. It’s a list of the 10 types of external content that I have created for others, and can create for you. See my post “The 22 (or more) Types of Content That Product Marketers Create” for more information on both external and internal content types that I can create.
Because the more you look at my brand content, the more my brand will be recognized by generative AI.
I was curious myself, so I tested this. ChatGPT was at capacity when I wrote this post, so I asked Bard “Who is the biometric content marketing expert?”
From Google Bard, September 26, 2023.
John Bredehoft, of the company Bredemarket, is a biometric content marketing expert. He has over 25 years of experience in biometrics and other identity modalities, including friction ridge, face, iris, voice, and DNA. He has created content for Bredemarket clients and his previous employers, including case studies, white papers, and blog posts, that have positioned his firms as biometric authorities.
Bredehoft’s expertise in biometrics and content marketing allows him to create content that is both informative and engaging for his target audience. He understands the issues behind biometric technologies and can explain them in a clear and concise way. He also knows how to write content that is optimized for search engines and social media.
If you are looking for a biometric content marketing expert, John Bredehoft is a great choice. He has the knowledge and experience to create content that will help you achieve your marketing goals.
From Google Bard, September 26, 2023.
Now I don’t know yet if ChatGPT will yield a similar response, and if not I have some more work to do.
But enough about me.
How can you increase YOUR brand mentions?
Let’s talk about you, your content marketing needs, and your need for prospects and customers to know about your brand.
Whether you want to rank in a traditional search engine or generative AI, the key is the creation of content. When you work with Bredemarket as your content creation partner, we start by discussing your goals and other critical information that is important to you. We do this before I start writing your blog post, social media post, case study, white paper, or other piece of content (car show posters, anyone?).
Let’s hold that (complimentary) discussion to see if Bredemarket’s services are a fit for your needs. Book a meeting with me at calendly.com/bredemarket. Be sure to fill out the information form so I can best help you.
Well, the FATE side of the house has released its first two studies, including one entitled “Face Analysis Technology Evaluation (FATE) Part 10: Performance of Passive, Software-Based Presentation Attack Detection (PAD) Algorithms” (NIST Internal Report NIST IR 8491; PDF here).
Machine learning models need training data to improve their accuracy—something I know from my many years in biometrics.
And it’s difficult to get that training data—something else I know from my many years in biometrics. Consider the acronyms GDPR, CRPA, and especially BIPA. It’s very hard to get data to train biometric algorithms, so they are trained on relatively limited data sets.
At the same time that biometric algorithm training data is limited, Kevin Indig believes that generative AI large language models are ALSO going to encounter limited accessibility to training data. Actually, they are already.
The lawsuits have already begun
A few months ago, generative AI models like ChatGPT were going to solve all of humanity’s problems and allow us to lead lives of leisure as the bots did all our work for us. Or potentially the bots would get us all fired. Or something.
But then people began to ask HOW these large language models work…and where they get their training data.
Just like biometric training models that just grab images and associated data from the web without asking permission (you know the example that I’m talking about), some are alleging that LLMs are training their models on copyrighted content in violation of the law.
I am not a lawyer and cannot meaningfully discuss what is “fair use” and what is not, but suffice it to say that alleged victims are filing court cases.
Comedian and author Sarah Silverman, as well as authors Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey — are suing OpenAI and Meta each in a US District Court over dual claims of copyright infringement.
The suits alleges, among other things, that OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Meta’s LLaMA were trained on illegally-acquired datasets containing their works, which they say were acquired from “shadow library” websites like Bibliotik, Library Genesis, Z-Library, and others, noting the books are “available in bulk via torrent systems.”
This could be a big mess, especially since copyright laws vary from country to country. This description of copyright law LLM implications, for example, is focused upon United Kingdom law. Laws in other countries differ.
Systems that get data from the web, such as Google, Bing, and (relevant to us) ChatGPT, use “crawlers” to gather the information from the web for their use. ChatGPT, for example, has its own crawler.
But that only includes the sites that blocked the crawler when Originality AI performed its analysis.
More sites will block the LLM crawlers
Indig believes that in the future, the number of the top 1000 sites that will block ChatGPT’s crawler will rise significantly…to 84%. His belief is based on analyzing the business models for the sites that already block ChatGPT and assuming that other sites that use the same business models will also find it in their interest to block ChatGPT.
The business models that won’t block ChatGPT are assumed to include governments, universities, and search engines. Such sites are friendly to the sharing of information, and thus would have no reason to block ChatGPT or any other LLM crawler.
The business models that would block ChatGPT are assumed to include publishers, marketplaces, and many others. Entities using these business models are not just going to turn it over to an LLM for free.
One possibility is that LLMs will run into the same training issues as biometric algorithms.
In biometrics, the same people that loudly exclaim that biometric algorithms are racist would be horrified at the purely technical solution that would solve all inaccuracy problems—let the biometric algorithms train on ALL available biometric data. In the activists’ view (and in the view of many), unrestricted access to biometric data for algorithmic training would be a privacy nightmare.
Similarly, those who complain that LLMs are woefully inaccurate would be horrified if the LLM accuracy problem were solved by a purely technical solution: let the algorithms train themselves on ALL available data.
Could LLMs buy training data?
Of course, there’s another solution to the problem: have the companies SELL their data to the LLMs.
In theory, this could provide the data holders with a nice revenue stream while allowing the LLMs to be extremely accurate. (Of course the users who actually contribute the data to the data holders would probably be shut out of any revenue, but them’s the breaks.)
But that’s only in theory. Based upon past experience with data holders, the people who want to use the data are probably not going to pay the data holders sufficiently.
Google and Meta to Canada: Drop dead / Mourir
By The original uploader was Illegitimate Barrister at Wikimedia Commons. The current SVG encoding is a rewrite performed by MapGrid. – This vector image is generated programmatically from geometry defined in File:Flag of Canada (construction sheet – leaf geometry).svg., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32276527
Even today, Google and Meta (Facebook et al) are greeting Canada’s government-mandated Bill C-18 with resistance. Here’s what Google is saying:
Bill C-18 requires two companies (including Google) to pay for simply showing links to Canadian news publications, something that everyone else does for free. The unprecedented decision to put a price on links (a so-called “link tax”) breaks the way the web and search engines work, and exposes us to uncapped financial liability simply for facilitating access to news from Canadian publications….
As a result, we have informed them that we have made the difficult decision that, when the law takes effect, we will be removing links to Canadian news publications from our Search, News, and Discover products.
Google News Showcase is the program that gives money to news organizations in Canada. Meta has a similar program. Peter Menzies notes that these programs give tens of millions of (Canadian) dollars to news organizations, but that could end, despite government threats.
The federal and Quebec governments pulled their advertising spends, but those moves amount to less money than Meta will save by ending its $18 million in existing journalism funding.
Bearing in mind that Big Tech is reluctant to give journalistic data holders money even when a government ORDERS that they do so…
…what is the likelihood that generative AI algorithm authors (including Big Tech companies like Google and Microsoft) will VOLUNTARILY pay funds to data holders for algorithm training?
If Kevin Indig is right, LLM training data will become extremely limited, adversely affecting the algorithms’ use.
All too often, Bredemarket confines its writing discussions to the traditional ABCW (articles, blog posts, case studies, white papers) categories.
But what if your content needs are non-traditional and fall outside of the usual nice neat business writing categories?
From the 2023 Route 66 Cruisin’ Reunion, Saturday, September 16, 2023.
If you are an Inland Empire business who needs words, but not in the traditional “ABCW” (articles, blog posts, case studies, white papers) business types, Bredemarket will help you with your non-traditional writing needs.
Take a look at the examples I’ve provided below, and if these spark interest within you, authorize Bredemarket, Ontario California’s content marketing expert, to help your firm produce words that return results.
Book a meeting with me at calendly.com/bredemarket. Be sure to fill out the information form so I can best help you. For example, if you’re an Inland Empire business requiring non-traditional content, fill out the form accordingly.
I won’t go into all 22 types again, especially since some of them are internal content rather than customer-facing content. But I’d like to highlight the “ABCW” four types that I mentioned at the beginning of this blog post, plus a couple of others.
Articles and blog posts
I’m lumping articles and blog posts together, because while some “experts” try to draw hard-and-fast distinctions between the two, they’re pretty much the same thing.
Whether it’s a blog post on your website, a post or article on LinkedIn, or even some extended text associated with an Instagram picture or a TikTok video, what you’re creating is some text that entertains, persuades, inspires, or educates your reader, or perhaps all four. You set the goal for the article or blog post, then tailor the content to meet the goal. (I’ll talk more about goals later.)
Case studies
From “How Bredemarket Can Help You Win Business,” available via this post.
Case studies show your readers how your solution was applied to someone else’s problem, and how your solution can benefit your prospects with similar problems.
Maybe your prospect is a city police agency that needs a tool to solve crimes, and your case study describes how your solution solved crimes in a similar city. Again, you set the goal for the case study, then tailor the content to meet the goal.
White papers
On the surface, white papers are informational, but when a company issues a white paper, the “information” that the white paper provides should gently guide the reader toward doing business with the company that issued the paper. Using the example above, you could write a white paper that outlines “Five Critical Elements for a Local Crime-Solving Solution.” By remarkable coincidence, your own solution happens to include all five of those critical elements. Again, you set the goal and tailor the content.
Briefs, data sheets, and literature sheets
One-page sheet for the Bredemarket 400 Short Writing Service. More information here.
Perhaps you need to provide handouts to your prospects that describe your product or service.
Regardless of whether you call these handouts briefs, data, sheets, literature sheets, or something else, they should at a minimum contain both “educate” and “persuade” elements—educate your prospects on the benefits of your product or service, and persuade your prospects to move closer to a sale (conversion).
Again, you set the goal and tailor the content.
Web page content
If your business has a web page, I hope that it has more words than “Under construction.” Whether you have imagery, video, audio, text, or all four on your web page, it needs to answer the questions that your prospects and customers have.
You know what I’m going to say here, but it’s still important. You set the goal and tailor the content.
But…what if your business needs content that doesn’t fall into these traditional business categories?
Non-traditional content: going to a car show
I went to a car show this weekend—specifically, this year’s Route 66 Cruisin’ Reunion in downtown Ontario, California. (Yes, I know that Route 66 actually passed three miles north of downtown Ontario, but work with me here.)
While some of the exhibitors were personal, some of them were businesses. As businesses, what was the major marketing collateral that they generated?
Not a blog post, or LinkedIn article, or any of the traditional business media collateral.
In addition to the car itself, this exhibitor included poster boards with words describing the car.
Another exhibitor did the same thing.
So while these car show exhibitors didn’t choose a traditional way to convey their words, they shared written text anyway.
Your non-traditional business communication needs
Maybe you don’t have a classic car. Maybe you don’t have a car at all. Do you need to share words with your prospects and customers anyway?
Now I don’t know your business communication needs. You do. But I can guess a few things.
Do you need to tell your clients/potential clients why you do what you do?
Do you need to tell them how you do it?
And last but not least, do you need to tell them what you do?
I know that this may seem like an unusual order to you. Why not start with what you do?
Because your customers don’t care about what you do. Your customers care about themselves.
If you keep the focus on your customers, the answer to the “why” question will induce your customers to care about you, because it shows how you can solve their problems.
Let’s illustrate this.
Why and how Bredemarket creates non-traditional content
You may be asking why I create content in the first place. There are countless content creators, both human and non-human. Why turn to me when OpenAI and its bot buddies are a lot cheaper and faster?
Normally I include my recent professional picture, but I have been writing since my college days (on a typewriter back then).
Bredemarket’s service is independent of content type. I don’t have a “Bredemarket blog writing service” or “Bredemarket data sheet writing service” or “Bredemarket case study writing service.” My services are based on word length, not content type, with my most popular service targeted to customers who need between 400 and 600 words of text. From this perspective, I don’t care if you want the words to appear on your website or your social media channel or a paper flyer or a sign next to your car or a really really long banner towed behind an airplane. (Read about the Bredemarket 400 Short Writing Service here.)
Before I write a thing, I ask your some questions. It won’t surprise you to learn that my first questions to you are why, how, and what. I then move on to questions about your goal for the content, the benefits of your solution, the target audience for your solution, and many additional questions. (Read about the Six Questions Your Content Creator Should Ask You here.)
Once the questions are out of the way, content creation is collaborative and iterative. I create a draft, you review it, and we repeat. The Bredemarket 400 service includes two review cycles; longer content needs include three review cycles. The goal is to ensure that both of us are happy with the final product.
Bredemarket’s process applies regardless of the specific content type, so I should be able to support whatever content you need, whether it’s traditional or non-traditional.
From the 2022 Cruisin’ Reunion in Ontario, California. The 2023 edition takes place this weekend.
(Updated blog post count 10/23/2023)
There are many ways for Inland Empire firms to raise awareness about their offerings. For certain firms, blogging provides quantifiable benefits. Can your firm take advantage of blogging’s fresh immediacy?
In most cases, I can provide your blog post via my standard package, the Bredemarket 400 Short Writing Service. I offer other packages and options if you have special needs.
Get in touch
Authorize Bredemarket, Ontario California’s content marketing expert, to help your firm produce words that return results.
Identity and biometrics firms can achieve quantifiable benefits with prospects by blogging. Over 40 identity and biometrics firms are already blogging. Is yours?
These firms (and probably many more) already recognize the value of identity blog post writing, and some of them are blogging frequently to get valuable content to their prospects and customers.
Is your firm on the list? If so, how frequently do you update your blog?
In most cases, I can provide your blog post via my standard package, the Bredemarket 400 Short Writing Service. I offer other packages and options if you have special needs.
Get in touch with Bredemarket
Authorize Bredemarket, Ontario California’s content marketing expert, to help your firm produce words that return results.
To discuss your identity/biometrics blog post needs further,book a meeting with me at calendly.com/bredemarket. On the questionnaire, select the Identity/biometrics industry and Blog post content.
Always take advantage of your competitors’ weaknesses.
This post describes an easy way to take advantage of your competitors. If they’re not blogging, make sure your firm is blogging. And the post provides hard numbers that demonstrate why your firm should be blogging.
Which means that half of those companies don’t have a public corporate blog.
The same infographic also revealed the following:
86% of B2B companies are blogging. (Or, 14% are not.)
68% of social media marketers use blogs in their social media strategy. (Or, 32% don’t.)
45% of marketers saying blogging is the #1 most important piece of their content strategy.
Small businesses under 10 employees allocate 42% of their marketing budget to content marketing.
So obviously some firms believe blogging is important, while others don’t.
What difference does this make for your firm?
What results do blogging companies receive?
In my view, the figures above are way too low. 100% of all Fortune 500 companies, 100% of B2B companies should be blogging, and 100% of social media marketers should incorporate blogging.
Getting leads from blogging is nice, but show me the money! What about conversions?
Marketers who have prioritized blogging are 13x more likely to enjoy positive ROI.
92% of companies who blog multiple times per day have acquired a customer from their blog.
Take a look at those last two bullets related to conversion again. Blogging is correlated with positive ROI (I won’t claim causation, but anecdotally I believe it), and blogging helps firms acquire customers. So if your firm wants to make money, get blogging.
What should YOUR company do?
With numbers like this, shouldn’t all companies be blogging?
But don’t share these facts with your competitors. Keep them to yourself so that you gain a competitive advantage over them.
Now you just need to write those blog posts.
How can I help?
And if you need help with the actual writing, I, John E Bredehoft of Bredemarket, can help.
And if you’re not in the identity/biometric industry, my general content marketing expertise also applies to technology firms and general business firms.
In most cases, I can provide your blog post via my standard package, the Bredemarket 400 Short Writing Service. I offer other packages and options if you have special needs.
Authorize Bredemarket, Ontario California’s content marketing expert, to help your firm produce words that return results.
But are computerized systems any better, and can they detect spoofed voices?
Well, in the same way that fingerprint readers worked to overcome gummy bears, voice readers are working to overcome deepfake voices.
This is only the beginning of the war against voice spoofing. Other companies will pioneer new advances that will tell the real voices from the fake ones.
As for independent testing:
ID R&D has participated in multiple ASVspoof tests, and performed well in them.
Bredemarket 