30.【Voice AI Design】Why Voice Generation AIs Break So Easily

Why Directly Connecting an LLM Leads to Collapse

tags: [“Voice Generation AI”, “LLM”, “FSM”, “System Design”, “Generative AI”]

🎧 Why Do Voice Generation AIs Break So Easily?

— 🤖 Why Directly Connecting an LLM Causes Failure

Voice generation AIs are far more fragile than text generation systems.
However, this is not a problem of model performance or training data.

💡 The root cause is structural design.

In this article, we examine—through a design and control perspective—

• ❓ Why voice generation AIs fail so easily
• ⚠️ Why directly connecting an LLM leads to accidents
• 🧩 What kind of structure prevents failure

🔚 Conclusion First

🧠 Voice generation AI is not a generation problem — it is a control problem.

The moment an LLM is placed at the center of speech generation,
the voice AI becomes almost guaranteed to be unstable.

⏱ Why Voice Is Harder Than Text

📝 Text Is a “Static Medium”

• Can be generated in batches
• Can be revised or rolled back
• Even if partially broken, it remains readable

🔊 Voice Is a “Time-Continuous Medium”

• Once spoken, sound cannot be erased
• Latency directly destroys the experience
• Any mid-stream failure is immediately obvious

👉 In other words, voice is:

🎯 A real-time control target

💥 Typical Failure Patterns in Voice Generation AI

① 🗣 Endless Talking

• End-of-utterance conditions are ambiguous
• LLM judges “continuing feels more natural”

② 🔄 Fragile to Interruptions

• System collapses the moment a human speaks
• Input and output collide

③ 🧊 Silent Freezing

• System state becomes unclear
• No defined condition to resume

⚠️ All of these are caused by
design flaws, not model limitations.

🔌 Why Directly Connecting an LLM Breaks the System

A common architecture looks like this:

🎤 Audio Input → 🤖 LLM → 🔊 Audio Output

Problems with this structure:

• LLMs do not hold state
• They cannot control time sequences
• End conditions are ambiguous
• Interruptions cannot be handled

👉 Conclusion:

❌ LLMs cannot sit at the center of a control loop

🧭 Viewing Voice AI as an FSM Changes Everything

If we view voice AI as an
FSM (Finite State Machine), the structure becomes surprisingly simple.

📦 Typical States

• 💤 Idle
• 👂 Listening
• 🧠 Thinking
• 🔊 Speaking
• ✋ Interrupted
• 🚨 Error / Fallback

👉 With just these,
almost all behavior can be expressed.

🏗 Correct Placement: LLM on the “Outside”

A stable architecture looks like this:

🧩 FSM (Control)
 ├─ 🎤 Audio Input
 ├─ 🔊 Audio Output
 └─ 🤖 LLM (content generation only)

The LLM’s responsibility is limited to:

• 📝 What to say
• 🗨 How to structure the utterance

Meanwhile, the FSM controls:

• ⏰ When to speak
• 🛑 When to stop
• ✋ Whether to interrupt

🚫 Do NOT Optimize “Naturalness” in Voice Generation

The most dangerous mindset in voice AI design is:

“Let’s make it sound more natural.”

⚠️ Naturalness cannot be formally defined as an evaluation function.
Optimizing something that cannot be defined inevitably leads to runaway behavior.

What design must guarantee instead:

• ✅ Clear states
• ✅ Explicit transition conditions
• ✅ Safe recovery paths

That is control integrity, not expressiveness.

🎭 Voice AI Is Not a “Conversation AI”

A common misconception:

• ❌ Conversation AI
• ⭕ State-transition AI

Voice feels emotional, but internally,
it is pure mechanical control.

📌 Summary

• 🎧 Voice generation AI is not a generation problem
• ⏱ It is a time-series control problem
• 🤖 Putting an LLM at the center causes failure
• 🧩 Putting an FSM at the center brings stability
• 🛰 The LLM belongs on the outside

🔜 Next Article Preview

• 🧩 Concrete FSM designs for voice AI
• ✋ Handling interruption, silence, and resumption
• 🔌 Keeping speech generation out of the control loop

Voice is fragile —
and that fragility is exactly what makes its design interesting.

(The GitHub-hosted Markdown is the canonical source; the Qiita version is a curated extract.)