Google opens access to its speech recognition API
121–130 of 173 posts
Re: Google opens access to its speech recognition API
#122Re: Google opens access to its speech recognition API
#123This is HUGE in my opinion. Prior to this, in order to get near state-of-the-art speech recognition in your system/application you either had to have/hire expertise to build your own or pay Nuance a significant amount of money to use theirs. Nuance has always been a "big bad" company in my mind. If I recall correctly, they've sued many of their smaller competitors out of existence and only do expensive enterprise dea…
If it's anything like Googles other APIs, people will build applications on top of it, and then Google will decide to shut down the API with no notice. Fun to play with, but don't expect it to last...
Re: Google opens access to its speech recognition API
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't that five years ago? When it came out of preview (and prices were expected to change)?
It was - 2011 is mentioned in both article and my comment. I just wish Google wouldn't bring back memories of that by not disclosing pricing of a very promising API. GAE has moved quite far ahead since then, but many people still won't consider it after the bad experience. Perceptions die hard...
Re: Google opens access to its speech recognition API
#125Tangentially related: Does anyone remember the name of this startup/service that was on HN (I believe), that enables you to infer actions from plaintext. Eg: "Switch on the lights" becomes {"action": "switch_on", "thing" : "lights" } etc.. I'm trying really hard to remember the name but it escapes me. Speech recognition and will go very well together.
Our service Wit.ai (YC W14) does just that. Demo: https://labs.wit.ai/demo/index.html
Since your service is completely free, how do you plan on surviving? Would you open source any parts of Wit.ai should you go under?
I feel these are important questions to ask before investing time & energy into using your otherwise awesome service...
Re: Google opens access to its speech recognition API
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsupervised_learning
While aware of unsupervised learning, I thought I had read somewhere that it wasn't yet a solved problem to use it for this kind of learning. But that might be wrong, and the Wikipedia article mentions some interesting examples.
First, you take the huge input (because something like sound has a huge amount of data in it, similarly with images there are a lot of pixels) and learn a simpler representation of it.
The second problem of mapping these nice dense features to actual things can be solved in different ways, even simple classifiers can perform well.
This doesn't actually need any labelled data. I just want to learn a smaller representation. For example, if we managed to learn a mapping from bits of audio to the phonetic alphabet then our speech recognition problem becomes one of just learning the mapping from the phonetic alphabet to words which is a far nicer problem to have.
Some ways of "deep learning" solve this first problem (of learning neater representations) through a step by step process of what I like to refer to as laziness.
Instead of trying to learn a really, really high level representation of your input data just learn a slightly smaller one. That's one layer. Then once we've got that we try and learn a smaller/denser representation on top of that. Then again, and again, and again.
How can you learn a smaller representation? Well a good way is to try and get a single layer to be able to regenerate its input. "Push" the input up, get the activations in the next layer, run the whole thing backwards and see how different your input is. You can then use this information to tweak the weights to make it slightly better the next time. Do this for millions and millions of inputs and it gets pretty good. This technique has been known about for a long time, but one of the triggers for the current big explosion of use was Hinton working out that this back and forth only really needs to be done once rather than 100 times (which was thought to be required beforehand).
Hinton says it made things 100,000 times faster because it was 1% of the computation required and it took him 17 years to realise it in which time computers got 1000 times faster. Along with this, GPUs got really really fast and easier to program. I took the original Hinton work that took weeks to train and had it running in hours back in 2008 on a cheap GPU. So before ~2006 this technique would have taken years of computer time, now it's down to minutes. Of course, that's then resulted in people building significantly larger networks that take much longer to train but would have been infeasible to run before.
But you still need a lot of unlabelled data. While I doubt google is doing that with this setup, they have done something before, where they setup a question answering service in the US that people could call I think for free to collect voice data.
TL;DR
You need labelled data. But it turns out you can learn most of what you need with unlabelled data, leaving you with a much simpler problem to solve. That's great because labelled data is massively more expensive than unlabelled data.
Re: Google opens access to its speech recognition API
#127Re: Google opens access to its speech recognition API
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our service Wit.ai (YC W14) does just that. Demo: https://labs.wit.ai/demo/index.html
I've been meaning to ask someone at Wit.ai this for a while: Since your service is completely free, how do you plan on surviving? Would you open source any parts of Wit.ai should you go under? I feel these are important questions to ask before investing time & energy into using your otherwise awesome service...
Re: Google opens access to its speech recognition API
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's anything like Googles other APIs, people will build applications on top of it, and then Google will decide to shut down the API with no notice. Fun to play with, but don't expect it to last...
That's incorrect. This is a Google Cloud Platform service and when it reaches General Availability (GA) it will be subject to our Deprecation Policy. Just like Compute Engine, Cloud Storage, etc. requires us to give at least a 1 year heads up. Disclosure: I work on Compute Engine.
Google has an history of shutting down useful products, why people should trust that one for long term integration?