Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

news.ycombinator.com

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#91
post #31

Google and Siri are good at what they do. They aren't good at other things, such as dictation. I see the big problem in voice interaction is that a human being will ask you questions to clarify what you said if they don't understand and current systems don't even try. (Actually the search paradigm lets you do some refinement, "Ok Google" works amazingly well on Android TV.) Superhuman accuracy at dictation doesn't tr…

I would imagine GPT-3 or similar would be able to fix replace the garbled 1 out of 20 words with something that actually make sense in context.

Yes, sort of. Thing is, many modern speech models actually learn an internal language model, so we're already kind of doing that. In languages and domains where massive amounts of training data is available (say, grammatically correct English), this internal language understanding is so good you don't need the external model[1].

On the other hand, throwing an additional language model like GPT and BERT into the mix can help if you don't have a ton of voice data. In my attempt to do this, a large portion of the improvement came from letting the language model read the previous sentences in the conversation[2]. AFAIK most commercial systems are blissfully unaware of your previous sentences, leading to conversations like "set an alarm"/"sure when?"/"eightam"/"your nearest ATM is...".

A word of caution though: letting BERT/GPT edit the outputs also gives a (potentially) much more dangerous failure mode: if the speech signal is difficult to understand, the resulting transcript will be difficult for humans to identify as transcription failures.

For example, "yeah, I dunno I haven't..." (read on a noisy phone line in an obscure dialect) was transcribed as "yeah yeah not that is I I am then" by the baseline speech system. After we let BERT edit the outputs, the transcript became "yeah that's not what I was saying...". Which, ironically, was definitely not what the person was saying.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08460, page 9

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02267

edit: clarify why previous sentences matter

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#92
post #17
post #14

That sounds exhausting. "Open this program" "Minimize" "Focus on this text input" ..dictate.. "switch to command mode" "save and close" i'd rather just: "click click tab type ctrl-S"

Most of these systems entail developing a shorthand. For operations you expect to do a lot you assign one-syllable commands.

Let's not create a false dichotomy between mouse control and voice control. There are other alternatives that are arguably less handicapping than being reduced to voice commands.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#93
Alexa can't even hear the 3 things I say to it every single day with any accuracy.

But, it seems like all voice control development keeps getting bought up by the Big 3, so it's not likely to have any significant breakthroughs independent of what Apple, Google and Amazon think voice control is good for.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#94
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure they do: `cp file1 file2` Vs properly enunciating "Kah-Pee f-i-l-e-1 to f-i-l-e-2"

I timed myself. 2.18 seconds to say it. Less time than it takes to type it.

you must type slow ... because I can type it in under half the time you claim it took you to speak it

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#95

Siri can’t understand “set a timer” more often than 3 in 4 tries for me, and any sentence with more than four words will have one error in it no matter what. I envy you the accuracy your voice assistants offer you, but for me, voice control makes me want to snap my phone in half from frustration at how terrible it is. I still can’t remember why I have a reminder set with the name “2910”, which is the transcription of…

I use "wake me up in x minutes". Siri always understands that 100%.

So to set a kitchen timer: "wake me up in 11 minutes"

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#96
JUST IMAGINE THE SCENARIO:

You have just been fired and as the security boys are escorting you to the door, you call out, loud enough to be heard in all the cubicles -

"Computer! Format all drives!"

OR MAYBE THIS OTHER SCENARIO:

The guy in the next cubicle has a loud voice and while he is commanding his own computer to "Exit the file without saving" you find that the work you have carefully constructed over the last four hours is suddenly thrown away too.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#97
GUIs are unsuitable to anything other than the mouse + keyboard. They are the outputs of their respective inputs.

You need dedicated software built on a hypothetical V(oice)UI to get anything decent.

Otherwise your best bet is to find a mouse/trackball/trackpad/pointerstick/touch-screen/pen that doesn't injure you and use text-to-speech in simple text editors.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#98
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends on how you define "high quality." To me, I'll take a restricted set of actions if they work very reliably. This is what I had back in the 80's with a Covox Voicemaster plugged into to the joystick port of my Commodore 64. It could only understand a few phrases, but I could define those phrases, and it almost always worked. If you define "high quality" as being able to respond to a seemingly infinit…

Totally agree. I too had the Covox voice recognizer on an SX-64 doing voice-controlled x10 (and other) home automation in the '80s. The amazing thing is that despite the fact that an RPi 4 has more power than a Cray had back then, modern voice recognition really isn't much better than it was then. (Although it was pretty speaker-dependent...) I have a handful of Echo Dots and Shows in places I don't mind the security…

Probably it's not fully correct, but feels like the motivation behind Echo and similar is not home automation, but a feeding ad networks with the personal details about user.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#99
I have an RSI and I've been coding by voice exclusively for about 7 years. I used a system built on top of Dragon for most of that and in the last year switched to Talon.

I think there are multiple reasons:

* The obvious market is dictation of natural language, but this isn't what you want for voice control. If you try to use long descriptive phrases as your command language everything takes forever. So instead you end up making your own mini command language where all of your common actions are a single syllable, but now it's no longer the English or other natural language that users already know. So now your product has substantial learning curve just like learning a new keyboard layout.

* Everything other than talon has terrible latency. Most existing speech recognition engines were not designed with the kind of latency you want for quick one syllable commands.

* In order for it to be really effective you need the cooperation of applications (this is why I've written extensive emacs integration). Some tools like window speech recognition try to hook in at the UI layer in order to figure out what text is in dialog boxes and such, but in practice they seem to do a pretty terrible job. Windows speech recognition has a very hard time consistently understanding what links you are trying to get it to click on for example. There's also a long tail of applications that just do their own custom UI rendering inside a blank canvas where no hook is possible.

* Good speech recognition even if not specifically targeting computer voice control is a genuinely hard research problem, and standard benchmarks for accuracy are misleading. You see "95% accuracy" and you are like wow that's a high percentage computers almost have this speech recognition thing solved and then you think about it harder and you go wait a minute, that's one mistake every 20 words! Maybe you are still impressed, but then you have to take into account that when the computer does the wrong thing you'll need to issue more commands in order to correct it, which will are also likely be misinterpreted. When you make a typo with a keyboard the mistakes rarely cascade, you just hit backspace.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?

#100
I have been coding entirely by voice for approximately 10 years now (by hand long before that). Most of that time I have been using the Dragonfly (https://github.com/dictation-toolbox/dragonfly) library to construct my own customized voice coding system. The library is highly flexible and open source, allowing you to easily customize everything to suit what you need to be productive. It is perhaps the power user analogue to Dragon Naturally Speaking. With it, you can certainly be highly productive coding by voice. However, it does require work to setup and customize to suit you, so it isn't really for the "general population" of computer users to just sit down and use. With regard to accuracy of speech recognition, being open allows you to (with sufficient motivation) to train a custom acoustic speech model that recognizes your voice specifically extremely well.

Regarding the software packages you referenced: Yes, Dragon is trash that I want nothing to do with, because of its inefficient interface, its complete inability to accurately understand my voice, and its generally shoddy software quality. Voice Computer (which I hadn't seen before) is therefore eliminated as well, though it doesn't look terrible as a front end to Dragon to better use the OS GUI-accessibility info. Many people like Talon, but I demand something open, which I can modify to suit my needs.

Background: I develop kaldi-active-grammar (https://github.com/daanzu/kaldi-active-grammar), a free and open source speech recognition backend usable by Dragonfly, itself entirely by voice. There's also a community of voice coders using Dragonfly and other tools that build on top of it, such as Caster (https://github.com/dictation-toolbox/Caster).

Post reply on HN