Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 164 posts

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#21

Post by ant512 »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #5
grzm wrote: post #2

I don't have a background in this area, so I'm likely easily impressed, but this seems really impressive. And the acknowledgement that there's a lot of work to be done, such as discriminating between speakers and recognition in adverse environments. Yeah, it's Microsoft writing on their own technology, but they addressed in the text the questions I had already in mind from just reading the title. It didn't leave me w…

I don't get why that's frustrating, without image and speech recognition AI isn't possible. -- How intelligent could people be without sensory perception? Hellen Keller is the exception, take away the ability for humans to process sound, and images as a species and we wouldn't be nearly as advanced as we are today even if we still had the same brain structure and mental capacity. Ray Kurzweil understood this and is w…

On the other hand, if you had true AI first, you'd just say "here's an input device; figure out how to parse the data."

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#22

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wbl wrote: post #17
gingerrr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Turing test doesn't test for intelligence , simply human-like communication. Things like lying, typing errors, or reaction to insult aren't indicators of an artificial intelligence, but are requirements for passing the Turing test. One of the biggest criticisms of the Turing test is, because it's a behavioral or functional test, there is no way to ensure that the computer is actually thinking intelligently at all…

This is also true for pwople. How do you know humans are thinking and not following lots of social rules they learn thanks to special neural hardware for learning social interaction? Think about the intelligence conveyed in ritualized greetings.

You are recapitulating Descartes. Consciousness appears to be immeasurable. You can only know that you are conscious. It is polite to give others the benefit of doubt.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#23

Post by jcoffland »

Maarten88 wrote: post #11

Nice to read this, being someone who uses lots of Microsoft products, but I have mixed feelings: after all these years Cortana still understands 0.0% of my native language (Dutch). Very disappointing, especially seeing that Google has no problems understanding Dutch.

What do you think the chances are that Philips is working on this?

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#25

Post by jcoffland »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #16
madenine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its frustrating when people assume any reference to AI means AGI or strong AI.

It's not their fault really. Tv and movies, especially ones like the matrix, AI and Irobot call AGI, AI. Doesn't make it any less frustrating, but also distinguishes the people in it versus those who aren't.

I'm not so sure anyone was using the term AGI when the first Matrix movie came out. Anyway, you cannot expect Hollywood to always use the precisely correct term for things scientific without first pushing up your glasses.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#27

Post by jcoffland »

PravlageTiem wrote: post #20
Lxr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what is your definition of AI?

A machine process qualifies as AI if it believes in a god. EDIT: I see the nuances of epistemological problems are lost to HN and knee-jerk culture war atheism still rules supreme.

ELIZA could be made to believe in God.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#29

Post by ghurtado »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #5
grzm wrote: post #2

I don't have a background in this area, so I'm likely easily impressed, but this seems really impressive. And the acknowledgement that there's a lot of work to be done, such as discriminating between speakers and recognition in adverse environments. Yeah, it's Microsoft writing on their own technology, but they addressed in the text the questions I had already in mind from just reading the title. It didn't leave me w…

I don't get why that's frustrating, without image and speech recognition AI isn't possible. -- How intelligent could people be without sensory perception? Hellen Keller is the exception, take away the ability for humans to process sound, and images as a species and we wouldn't be nearly as advanced as we are today even if we still had the same brain structure and mental capacity. Ray Kurzweil understood this and is w…

> I don't get why that's frustrating, without image and speech recognition AI isn't possible

Wait, what? The most commonly known (and perhaps oldest) AI test in no way requires either image nor speech recognition.

Millions of blind and deaf human beings would like to disagree with your claim that they are not intelligent or sentient beings.

Seriously, what is the basis of this claim?

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#30

Post by PravlageTiem »

jcoffland wrote: post #27
PravlageTiem wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A machine process qualifies as AI if it believes in a god. EDIT: I see the nuances of epistemological problems are lost to HN and knee-jerk culture war atheism still rules supreme.

ELIZA could be made to believe in God.

Being made to believe in a god isn't the same as believing in one.

Silicon Valley thinks AI is not an epistemological problem, as if neurons can be perfectly simulated atomically and that all intelligence processes can be categorized as structured vs. unstructured. Very naive conclusions.

Ironically, they BELIEVE if you simulate the axiomatic neuron perfectly, emergent properties of intelligence will mystically emerge after some undefined threshold of complexity. They are permanently unable to simulate the two billion years of neurological evolution and natural selection for such a belief to hold.

If you must emulate human intelligence, you must be able to navigate the realm of distilling reality from the overlap between truth and belief. Mocking how humans observe reality isn't enough.

Abrahamic religion explored the alternative intelligence problem in great depth over two thousand years ago. It's a pity the results have been lost to Progressive axe grinding.

Post reply on HN