Automated voices already power a sizeable slice of unwanted calls: a U.S. honeypot finds roughly 27% open with machine audio—split between replays and detected synthetic speech—yet callers almost never admit they're automated (0.44%), and detector labels require listener validation.

Main Finding

An interactive voice honeypot collected 10,987 inbound unwanted-call recordings (66 days). Of the 7,233 calls the honeypot greeted on normal (non-outage) days, at least 26.9% opened with machine evidence on the audio alone: 13.8% opened with a recording that reappeared on another call and 13.1% with fresh audio that a commercial synthetic-speech detector labeled synthetic. A further 9.9% were silent connections (no reply after the persona’s greeting) that the authors read as machine-placed; 9.0% of openings could not be scored. The commercial detector by itself labeled 29.3% of 6,192 scored openings synthetic; blinded listeners confirmed 54.4% of the detector-flagged clips, giving a listener-confirmed synthetic-opening estimate of roughly 15.6–15.9% of scored calls under plausible reweighting assumptions. Synthetic openings concentrate in lead-generation spam (33.8%) more than in fraud (21.1%), and only 0.44% of synthetic-labeled calls verbally disclosed that they were automated.

Key Points

• Corpus and scale: 10,987 calls recorded over 66 days; main analytic stratum is 6,619 two-turn calls, of which 6,192 carried scorable caller speech.
• Measurement instruments:
  • Audio fingerprint (detector-free) to identify identical replayed recordings across calls.
  • Commercial synthetic-speech detector applied to caller-only 10-second onset-aligned clips (per-utterance scores aggregated by max; threshold dfmax ≥ 0.85 used as primary operating point).
  • Blinded human listeners (11 internal listeners) for validation.
• Main numeric results (normal-day greeted calls, unless noted):
  • 13.8% replayed recordings (fingerprint).
  • 13.1% fresh audio labeled synthetic by detector (29.3% of 6,192 scored openings when using detector alone).
  • Combined machine-voiced (recording + detector-labeled synthetic) = 26.9% (audio-evidence only).
  • 9.9% silent connections after greeting (read as machine-placed).
  • 9.0% unscorable openings.
  • Blinded validation: of 1,816 detector-flagged calls, 878 were judged by listeners and 54.4% of those confirmed synthetic; only 23 judgments exist for detector-nonflagged clips in this report (so authors present precision, not a fully validated prevalence).
  • Same-waveform instability: a waveform played on two calls crosses the detector threshold oppositely ~13.6% of the time.
• Distributional facts:
  • Synthetic-labeled calls more common in lead-generation sales (33.8%) than fraud (21.1%).
  • Synthetic-labeled calls often use toll-free numbers and tend to be shorter; differences in conversion or credential requests largely vanish after adjusting for call length and number type.
  • Disclosure is rare: 0.44% admit present automation; 17% announce that the call is recorded.
• Campaign structure and asset reuse:
  • Campaigns often reuse the same script/recording or the same synthetic voice across many disposable originating numbers. Example: one recorded compliance notice opened calls in six campaigns; one synthetic voice served nine campaigns.
  • Seeding history (how long a bait number has been exposed in lead forms) predicts synthetic prevalence better than calendar time; exposure-age confounds naive trend analyses.
• Sensitivities and thresholds:
  • Fingerprint threshold choice affects split between “replay” and “fresh synthetic” (e.g., stricter fingerprint → replay 9.2%, synthetic 16.7%; total machine-voiced changes ≈1 percentage point).
  • Detector threshold choice would materially change point estimates (authors note the score distribution trough near 0.45–0.50; placing a threshold there would yield a higher synthetic rate).

Data & Methods

• Honeypot design:
  • Interactive voice honeypot: conversational LLM personas, each on a dedicated real U.S. telephone number, answer inbound calls and converse; persona audio and caller audio are recorded on separate channels so the caller leg is isolated for scoring.
  • Numbers were seeded into U.S. lead-generation web forms using fabricated consumer records; in forms with a consent checkbox the seeding agent sometimes checked it (seeding history is recorded and used in analyses).
• Corpus and filtering:
  • Collection span: 28 May–21 July 2026 (66 days). Total recorded calls with caller track: 10,987.
  • Two-turn analytic stratum: 6,619 calls (both honeypot greeting + at least one transcribed item); 6,192 carried scorable caller speech (rest unscorable for technical reasons).
  • Eleven outage days (persona answered silently) are set aside per a stated rule; calls during outages were handled separately.
• Audio preprocessing:
  • Caller-only audio onset detection: energy-based detector (30 ms frames, 10 ms hop), onset declared when energy > noise floor +10 dB for 250 ms; 200 ms pre-roll retained.
  • Fixed 10-second window from detected onset used for detection/validation (chosen for antispoofing literature and detector performance).
• Replay detection (audio fingerprint):
  • Vendor-free audio fingerprinting finds identical waveforms played across calls; used to label “replay” recordings versus fresh renderings from a synthesizer.
  • Fingerprint has its own threshold; authors report results under two settings to show sensitivity.
• Synthetic-speech detection:
  • Commercial closed detector (vendor withheld) with per-utterance deepfake_score ∈ [0,1]; authors aggregate to dfmax = max per-utterance score per call and use dfmax ≥ 0.85 as primary label for “synthetic.”
  • Authors also report mean-aggregation for sensitivity and sweep thresholds.
• Human validation:
  • 11 internal listeners, blinded interface, labeled ten-second clips; no external screening or qualification reported.
  • Validation sample: 1,816 detector-flagged calls, 878 judged by listeners (54.4% confirmation); only 23 judgments for non-flagged snippets in this version, so validation supports detector precision estimate rather than full calibrated prevalence.
• Limitations discussed by authors:
  • Closed commercial detector (no training-data transparency) applied to narrowband 8 kHz telephony audio—benchmarks can degrade out-of-distribution.
  • Listener panel internal, unscreened—may bias validation.
  • Threshold choices (detector and fingerprint) materially affect point estimates; authors provide sensitivity sweeps.
  • Honeypot seeding schedule and fabricated identities mean prevalence estimates are conditional on the collection design (exposure-age effects).
  • Some calls unscorable or silent; outages handled per rule.

Implications for AI Economics

• Adoption and substitution effects
  • Substantial prevalence (≈15–27% depending on instrument and validation assumptions) implies voice synthesis is a material delivery mechanism in unwanted inbound calls already by mid‑2026. This supports a view that AI voice is not merely marginal novelty but an operational input at scale in high-volume lead-generation.
  • Lower per-call marginal cost of synthesized or automated voice (vs. live agents or paid voice actors) makes scaling cheap outreach feasible; firms in low-harm, high-volume segments (lead gen/sales) have clear incentive to adopt it.
• Assetization and firm strategy
  • Campaign assets (scripts, recordings, synthetic voices) persist across disposable numbers. This means the durable economic value to an operator is in voices/scripts/models rather than numbers. Markets will price and trade these assets (voice profiles, script templates, reusable recordings), increasing secondary markets for voice assets and monetization opportunities for TTS/voice cloning providers.
  • Blocklisting/reputation systems that index by originating number face a structural limitation because numbers are cheap and disposable; economic mitigation will shift toward content-/asset-based signals (script fingerprints, voice-model identifiers) and upstream carrier/platform interventions.
• Regulation, compliance costs, and market structure
  • Low voluntary disclosure (0.44%) implies a large gap between existing practice and any disclosure mandate (e.g., proposed rule requiring callers to state that the voice is AI-generated). If regulators impose disclosure/identification/opt-out obligations (as the FCC’s TCPA regime contemplates), firms using synthetic voice will face compliance costs (disclosure logic in calling stacks, provenance attestation, audit trails), and some operators may exit or move to more adversarial tactics to avoid compliance.
  • Enforcement and compliance monitoring will be a service market—opportunities for vendors offering verified provenance, auditable attestation, or network-level detection/provenance stamping.
• Labor market and task allocation
  • The concentration of synthetic voice in lead-gen (rather than high-harm fraud) suggests initial displacement pressure on lower-skilled outbound sales agents and call-center roles. Firms may reallocate human agents toward higher-complexity or closer stages (sales closers), while automated front ends handle scale outreach.
  • Authors found AI-labeled calls often hand off to live closers; however, they did not find strong evidence that synthetic openings convert less once length is controlled. That affects firms’ ROI calculations for automation vs. human staffing.
• Detection and mitigation economics
  • Detection noise (same waveform can cross detector threshold inconsistently ~13.6% of the time) and limited validation precision (~54% confirmed) indicate nontrivial enforcement and false-positive costs. Deployers of detection (carriers, handset vendors) must weigh the economic costs of false positives (blocking legitimate calls) versus benefits of blocking synthetic nuisance traffic.
  • The need for improved, robust telephony-specific detectors creates commercial opportunity and justifies investment in research/benchmarking for narrowband telephone conditions.
• Market externalities and social cost
  • Widespread use of synthetic voices in nuisance calls can reduce consumer trust in voice contact channels, lowering the value of phone-based outreach for legitimate businesses (a negative externality). This raises potential justification for regulation or platform-level mitigation that internalizes externalities (e.g., stricter provenance requirements, liability rules).
• Policy design insights
  • Because persistent campaign assets (scripts/voices) matter more than originating numbers, policy and enforcement that target only numbers will lag operationally and economically; cost-effective regulation should consider content provenance, tamper-evident attestation of automation, and obligations on upstream intermediaries who provision voice-generation services.
  • Baseline prevalence reported here informs cost–benefit calculations for proposed disclosure rules and the expected scale of compliance enforcement.
• Takeaway for economists and policymakers
  • The paper provides a replicable, instrumented baseline (with disclosed pipeline and sensitivity analyses) showing that synthetic voice is a significant operational input in unwanted calling. Economic models of scam/telemarketing markets should incorporate low marginal cost of synthetic voice, asset reuse across campaigns, disposable-number dynamics, and the nontrivial measurement uncertainty in detection when forecasting impacts of regulation or designing incentives for provenance solutions.

Limitations worth bearing in mind when using these results in economic models: the estimates are conditional on the honeypot’s seeding design and collector schedule; the detector used is closed-source and applied to narrowband telephony; human validation is partial and internal; threshold choices and fingerprint settings materially affect point estimates.