Show HN: A real time AI video agent with under 1 second of latency

455 points by hassaanr ↗ HN
Hey it’s Hassaan & Quinn – co-founders of Tavus, an AI research company and developer platform for video APIs. We’ve been building AI video models for ‘digital twins’ or ‘avatars’ since 2020.

We’re sharing some of the challenges we faced building an AI video interface that has realistic conversations with a human, including getting it to under 1 second of latency.

To try it, talk to Hassaan’s digital twin: https://www.hassaanraza.com, or to our "demo twin" Carter: https://www.tavus.io

We built this because until now, we've had to adapt communication to the limits of technology. But what if we could interact naturally with a computer? Conversational video makes it possible – we think it'll eventually be a key human-computer interface.

To make conversational video effective, it has to have really low latency and conversational awareness. A fast-paced conversation between friends has ~250 ms between utterances, but if you’re talking about something more complex or with someone new, there is additional “thinking” time. So, less than 1000 ms latency makes the conversation feel pretty realistic, and that became our target.

Our architecture decisions had to balance 3 things: latency, scale, & cost. Getting all of these was a huge challenge.

The first lesson learned was to make it low-latency, we had to build it from the ground up. We went from a team that cared about seconds to a team that counts every millisecond. We also had to support thousands of conversations happening all at once, without getting destroyed on compute costs.

For example, during early development, each conversation had to run on an individual H100 in order to fit all components and model weights into GPU memory just to run our Phoenix-1 model faster than 30fps. This was unscalable & expensive.

We developed a new model, Phoenix-2, with a number of improvements, including inference speed. We switched from a NeRF based backbone to Gaussian Splatting for a multitude of reasons, one being the requirement that we could generate frames faster than realtime, at 70+ fps on lower-end hardware. We exceeded this and focused on optimizing memory and core usage on GPU to allow for lower-end hardware to run it all. We did other things to save on time and cost like using streaming vs batching, parallelizing processes, etc. But those are stories for another day.

We still had to lower the utterance-to-utterance time to hit our goal of under a second of latency. This meant each component (vision, ASR, LLM, TTS, video generation) had to be hyper-optimized.

The worst offender was the LLM. It didn’t matter how fast the tokens per second (t/s) were, it was the time-to-first token (tfft) that really made the difference. That meant services like Groq were actually too slow – they had high t/s, but slow ttft. Most providers were too slow.

The next worst offender was actually detecting when someone stopped speaking. This is hard. Basic solutions use time after silence to ‘determine’ when someone has stopped talking. But it adds latency. If you tune it to be too short, the AI agent will talk over you. Too long, and it’ll take a while to respond. The model had to be dedicated to accurately detecting end-of-turn based on conversation signals, and speculating on inputs to get a head start.

We went from 3-5 to <1 second (& as fast as 600 ms) with these architectural optimizations while running on lower-end hardware.

All this allowed us to ship with a less than 1 second of latency, which we believe is the fastest out there. We have a bunch of customers, including Delphi, a professional coach and expert cloning platform. They have users that have conversations with digital twins that span from minutes, to one hour, to even four hours (!) - which is mind blowing, even to us.

Thanks for reading! let us know what you think and what you would build...

262 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 229 ms ] thread
Ah, I wish I could type to this thing
Great point. This is possible with CVI, but we didn't build it into the demos. We'll get it added
Oh man - i've been watching you guys for awhile. We're YC too and building a superapp for sales ppl. Any killer use cases you've seen or imagined for sales (outside of prospecting vid customization?
Glad we've been worth the follow :) Totally- we're seeing AI sales agents for calls, technical counterparts (think like AI sales engineer that joins the call with you), website embeds to answer initial questions or be a virtual sales rep.
> Lower-end hardware

That is? Roughly speaking, what resource spec?

Are you looking into speech to speech (no text) models?
Yeah we are! The issue we're seeing is with controllability and hallucinations in speech to speech models that we're trying to work through still
This is awesome! I particularly like the example from https://www.tavus.io/product/video-generation

It's got a "80s/90s sci-fi" vibe to it that I just find awesomely nostalgic (I might be thinking about the cafe scene in Back to the Future 2?). It's obviously only going to improve from here.

I almost like this video more than I like the "Talk to Carter" CTA on your homepage, even though that's also obviously valuable. I just happen to have people in the room with me now and can't really talk, so that is preventing me from trying it out. But I would like to see in action, so a pre-recorded video explaining what it does is key

Interesting -- compare the training video to the render! I think if you know the person, it would still be very hard to pass the digital twin as the real thing. But if you mean to face strangers, this could very well work already. There are small glitches but that's easy to blame on a video codes / network issues.
For me, there is 5 second+ delay and the video ends abruptly.
HN Hug of Death ?
It was pretty cool, I tried the Tavus demo. Seemed to nod way too much, like the entire time. The actual conversation was pretty clearly with a text model, because it has no concept of what it looks like, or even that it has a video avatar at all. It would say things like “I don’t have eyes” etc.
I came back to try the Hassaan one, it was much more realistic although he still denied wearing a hat. I think if you were able to run a still image of the character’s appearance through a multimodal LLM and have it generate a description for the conversation’s prompt it would work better.
This is a good suggestion, I’ll work on this!
This is really cool in terms of the tech, but what is this useful for as a consumer? I mean it's basically just a chatbot right? And nobody likes interacting with those. Forcing a conversational interaction seems like a step down in UX.
That's actually a good question. For example, the technology is still currently at a level where the user can still cleary tell that it's a chatbot, but now with a face. Does this make their experience better? Or does it add a weird level of uncaninness to the experience?
I don't think the level of fidelity actually matters as much as authority or ability. What can the agent do that isn't accomplished by, for example, a landing page or an FAQ page? I've never encountered a (text) chatbot that did anything useful for me as a consumer, whether for sales or support.
The problem is I don't even like video calls with real people.

It is the same problem that in most context, the video has no purpose. The only use for video is to put a face to a name/voice.

I hope my company competitors switch to AI video for sales and support. I would absolutely pay for that!

It'll depend on the use case- but with customers that are using it today we're seeing higher engagement and satisfaction rates. It's a different interface to communicate that is more natural to humans (our bullish opinion).
Interesting! Guess I'll have to try this type of interface at some point. Up till now I've just been that silent programmer type who writes text to AI and gets text back so I'm not used to other alternatives.
Totally- as programmers we're so used to communicating via text and meeting computers where they are- it's easy for us. However, we're the minority in the world! I think most people who are not us want to communicate like they do with others.
The way we see it is that this brings us closer to communicating with computers the way we communicate with each other. It has vision and can (not perfectly) take into account your expressions, your surroundings, and can respond accordingly.
This is a really good question. While you're right that a common use case would be chatbots for product support, it isn't the only one. Some examples:

- interactive experiences with historical figures - digital twins for celebrity/influencer fan interactions - "live" and/or personalized advertisements

Some of our users are already building these kinds of applications.

I don't even like video calls with real people in my real life. Texting works great. This is really neat but I'd much rather just have a text chat with a real customer service rep. I don't need to see a face, don't want to, and especially don't want to see a fake face.
I like how it weaves in background elements into the conversation; it mentioned my cat walking around.

I'm having latency issues, right now it doesn't seem to respond to my utterances and then responds to 3-4 of them in a row.

It was also a bit weird that it didn't know it was at a "ranch". It didn't have any contextual awareness of how it was presenting.

Overall it felt very natural talking to a video agent.

Incredibly impressive on a technical level. The Carter avatar seems to swallow nervously a lot (LOL), and there's some weirdness with the mouth/teeth, but it's quite responsive. I've seen more lag on Zoom talking to people with bad wifi.

Honestly this is the future of call centers. On the surface it might seem like the video/avatar is unnecessary, and that what really matters is the speech-to-speech loop. But once the avatar is expressive enough, I bet the CSAT would be higher for video calls than voice-only.

Actually what really matters for a call center is having the problem I called in for resolved promptly.
Right, so do you want to wait 45 minutes for a human, or get it resolved via AI in 2 minutes?
This presumes the AI has the same level of problem-solving agency of a real human, which I think is really asking for AGI. Until then I expect AI chatbots will mostly succeed at portraying care and gaslighting customers without actually finding solutions.
Yeah, could be. Most of the time when I contact customer service, there is no problem-solving necessary, and very little agency demonstrated. But I know call centers get a lot of complicated technical or billing questions that would be tough.
They work with different tiers usually? The first does the easy questions and they can write down the issue. If something happens regularly you can write a calling script for it. The question is if the ai can find the right script fast enough.

Helping the customer is not really the goal. They provide feedback that gives valuable insight into the dysfunctional part of the company so that things can improve. Maybe even generate an investor report from it.

That really depends on the type of call center we're talking about.

Many (most?) call centers won't do much more than telling you to turn it off and on again, even when you're talking to a real person. (And for many cutomers, that is really all they need.)

And AI operators in those call centers wouldn't even need to be better than humans, just cheaper. Not just for saving on human hiring: no building rent, no insurance, no this and that; everything would live within a cluster somewhere.
I don't understand why call centers exist in the first place.

If you just exposed all the functionality as buttons on the website, or even as AI, I'd be able to fix the problems myself!

And I say that while working for a company making call centre AIs... double ironic!

Agreed. I've been frustrated by the proliferation in AI with technical support. Sometimes it's can't answer a question but thinks it can, so we go round and round in circles.

A couple have had a low threshold for "this didn't solve my answer" and directed me to a human, but others are impossible to escape.

On the other hand, I've had more success with a problem actually getting resolved by a chatbot without speaking to someone more recently... But not a lot more. Ususally I think that because I skew technical and treat Support as a last resort, I've tried everything it wants to suggest.

>Honestly this is the future of call centers.

This feels like retro futurism, where we take old ideas and apply a futuristic twist. It feels much more likely that call centers will cease to be relevant, before this tech is ever integrated into them.

The meeting has ended Contact the meeting host if the meeting ended unexpectedly.
Try again! My blog got the hug of death it seems
Amazing work technically, less than 1 second is very impressive. It quite scary though that I might FaceTime someone one day soon, and they’d won’t be real.

What do you think about the societal implications for this? Today we have a bit of a loneliness crisis due to a lack of human connection.

Another nail in the coffin for WFH, too. "They" will be scared we're not actually working even when on calls.
The question is, what'll come first - AI agents that will replace white collar jobs, so you don't even need the employees or companies not trusting WFH employees, thus bringing everyone back to in person?
Very cool! I think part of why this felt believable enough for me is the compressed / low-quality video presented in an interface we're all familiar with -- it helps gloss over visual artifacts that would otherwise set off alarm bells at higher resolution. Kinda reminds me of how Unreal Engine 5 / Unity 6 demos look really good at 1440p / 4k @ 40-60 fps on a decent monitor, but absolutely blast my brain into pieces at 480p @ very high fps on a CRT. Things just gloss over in the best ways at lower resolutions + analog and trick my mind into thinking they may as well be real.
Ditto, we've actually seen this across the board with video. Even with real human recorded video. The 720p-ish resolutions consistently have the best results as they're the most relatable/natural.
Tried it, very impressive: digital Hassaan noticed record player at the background and asked some stuff about it, nice :) Had some latency issues though.
Felt like talking to a person, I couldn't bring myself to treat it like a piece of code, that's how real it felt. I wanted to be polite and diplomatic, caught myself thinking about "how I look to this person". This brought me thinking of the conscious effort we put in when we talk with people and how sloppy and relaxed we can be when interacting with algorithms.

For a little example, when searching Google I default to a minimal set of keywords required to get the result, instead of typing full sentences. I'm sort of afraid this technology will train people to behave like that when video chatting with virtual assistants and that attitude will bleed in real life interactions in societies.

Thanks for that insight. Brian here, one of the engineers for CVI. I've spoken with CVI so much, and as it has become more natural, I've found myself becoming more comfortable with a conversational style of interaction with the vastness of information contained within the LLMs and context under the hood. Whereas, with Google or other search based interactions I'm more point and shoot. I find CVI is more of an experience and for me yields more insight.
I’m having trouble understanding what CVI means here. Is it the firm Computer Vision Inc. (https://www.cvi.ai/)?

The firm in the post seems to be called Tavus, and their products either “digital twins” or “Carter.”

Not meaning to be pedantic, I’m just wondering whether the “V” in the thing you’ve spoken to indicates more “voice” or “video” conversations.

Hahah that's very valid looking back, it stands for Conversational Video Interface
I see it the other way around.

I think our human-human interaction style will “leak” into the way we interact with humanoid AI agents. Movie-Her style.

Mine certainly has. I type to ChatGPT much more like a human than a search engine. It feels more natural for me as it's context aware than search engines ever were. I can ask follow up questions and ask for more details about a specific portion or ask for the analysis I just walked it through to get the results I want to apply to another data set.

"Now dump those results into a markdown table for me please."

Yeah... was thinking about that the other day. Is it wierd to say please to an AI? i'll say please, but i'll never correct my spelling. Sometimes it's garbled because i missed a space and a couple key strokes but it always understands.
Only if the AI gets annoyed when you don't treat it with respect.
Seems easy enough to bring in to the system prompt.

``` Even though you are not human, and an AI assistant, you will express annoyance when you are treated like a soulless computer, instead of a virtual assistant. You will appreciate "Please"s and "Thank you"s, and you will express annoyance if your user does not converse with you using full and respectful sentences. ```

Definitely responds quickly. But could not carry on a conversation and kept trying to almost divert the conversation into less interesting topics. Weirdly kept complimenting me or taking one word and saying, oh you feel ____. Which is not what I said or feel.
I would pay cold hard cash if I could easily create an AI avatar of myself that could attend teams meetings and do basic interaction, like give a status update when called on.
Last time I checked it was not possible through Teams API call for video conferences, although it is pretty easy to set up a chat bot in Teams with a custom Copilot. I'd say that it looked more feasible through a plugin for Google Meet but there are too many hoops. I'd expect that to be reserved either for the host platforms or for selected partners.
I can't imagine someone doing this would be doing it through an official integration; it's much more likely to be a virtual webcam, which is compatible with anything.
Give us a few weeks and this will be possible!
I didn't mean the video impersonation, I was referring to the possibility of making a synthetic bot automatically attend a conference call like a regular user without using a desktop camera simulation or stuff like that.

It's not a matter of AI, it's a matter of how Teams or Meet or Zoom allow programmatic access to the video and audio streams (the presence APIs for attending a meeting are mostly there, I think).

You could hack this together now with OBS and Tavus.
using OBS software you can create a virtual web cam of whatever you want
Okay so this is impossible because you'll get caught because tech will never fool everyone like this all the time.

But lets talk about the sentiment behind here. Am I the only one seeing some terrible things being done with AI in terms of time management, meetings, and written materials? Asking AI to "turn this nice concise 3 paragraphs into a 6 page report" is a huge problem. Everyone thinks they're an amazing technical writer now, but most good writing is concise and short and these AI monstrosities are just a waste of everyone's time.

Reform work culture instead! Why do we have cameras on our faces? Why are we making these reports? Why so many meetings? "Meeting culture" is the problem and it needs to go, but it upholds middle-management jobs and structures, so here we are asking for robots of us to sit in meetings with management to get just the 8 bullet points we need from that 1 hour meeting.

We've entered a new level of kafkaesque capitalism where a manager puts 8 bullets points into an AI, gets a professional 4 page report, then turns that into a meeting for staff to take that report and meeting transcript to...you guessed it, turn it back into those 8 bullet points.

This would require the AI to alert you as soon as your colleagues are starting to figure out that they're talking to an AI and start interrogating it, so that you can jump in with your real mic and save the situation. Preferably the AI would repeat whatever you speak into your mic, otherwise there would be noticeable audio changes. Hope they never ask you to sing.
Hassaan isn't working but Carter works great. I even asked it to converse in Espanol, which it does (with a horrible accent) but fluently. Great work on the future of LLM interaction.
Unfortunately, it looks like HN has given my little blog the hug of death. Should be back up soon
This would be WONDERFUL with a Spanish-native accent as a language tutor, but as you've already got English you should try marketing this to the English-learning world. There is a huge dearth of native English speaker interaction in worldwide language instruction, and it's typically only available to the most privileged of students. Your system could democratize this so anyone with an affordable fee (say $10-20/month, subsidized for the poorest) could practice speaking and have their own personal tutor. The State Department and Defense Language Institute might love this as well as, if trained on languages like Iraqi Arabic and Korean would allow live-exercise training prior to deployment.

It can also function as an instructional tutor in a way that feels natural and interactive, as opposed to the clunkiness of ChatGPT. For instance, I asked it (in Spanish) to guide me through programming a REST API, and what frameworks I would use for that, and it was giving coherent and useful responses. Really the "secret sauce" that OpenAI needs to actually become integrated into everyday life.

Multilingual support is coming out shortly! Super excited to see all the awesome uses cases with this
Why is it trying to autofill my payment cards?

https://ibb.co/dp9hW58

That is your browser. Hassaan, you should add autocomplete="name" to prevent this in the future since clearly it scares some folks. He didn't do anything that its just your browser looking for autocomplete text boxes.
Great callout- will make that change now!
Functionality for a demo launch: 9.5/10

Creepiness: 10/10

I was just about to try it, but the idea of allowing Firefox access to my audio/video to talk to a machine-generated person gave me such a bad feeling, I couldn't go through with it even fuelled by my morbid curiosity.
I did it with my finger over the camera and it even commented on me having my finger over the camera!
I did it. The demo is kinda cool. If they want to steal an unshowered, back-lit, messy hair picture of me, go for it. I can't imagine it'd be that useful right now.
Super awkward. But promising. It should have taken more control of the conversation.
It left me speechless after commenting on a (small) text on my hoodie – this made it feel super personal all of a sudden (which is amazing for an AI of course)
This is really cool. I got kind of scared I was about to talk to some random Hassaan haha. Super excited to see where this goes. Incredible MVP.
Haha imagining the website just opening a direct webcam feed to my desk. Appreciate the support!
This was definitely one of the most disturbing experiences I've had.

But it's somehow awesome at the same time.

That is technically impressive, Hassaan, and thanks for sharing.

One recommendation: I wouldn't have the demo avatar saying things like "really cool setup you have there, and a great view out of your window". At that point, it feels intrusive.

As for what I'd build... Mentors/instructors for learning. If you could hook up with a service like mathacademy, you'd win edtech. Maybe some creatures instead of human avatars would appeal to younger people.

This is cool but if you're trying to cater to devs you need to have a simple on demand API model and no subscription. We need to be able to evaluate the cost on our side.
This is good feedback. We have a base subscription fee to cover ongoing costs of maintaining the models/replicas you create and other elements, otherwise it's all on-demand.