Good for them! I'm a bit surprised that the researchers didn't already possess human-level speech recognition, though.
Plot twist, Microsoft's researchers aren't human.
Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
101–110 of 164 posts
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#102any video or audio to get the idea how close they are?
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#103Nice 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?
Zero. They focus on medical equipment these days, so their research is probably in different areas.
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
It directly tests for intelligence, you confuse false negatives with false positives. An intelligent person that fails the test because they don't know a common language is fine. Note: Medical tests generate both false positives and false negatives, they are still useful.
I don't understand what your example here about common language rebuts - that's something that would be solved for in the premise of the test, or it's not a fair test. Is your argument that that person is still intelligent even if they've failed the test? Because that's the entirety of my point - the Turing test does not return a measure of intelligence, but of communicability. Or is your point that if such a person…
No, the point is false negatives don't invalidate a test. It requires both intelligence and communication abilities.
Cost and accuracy are obvious trade-offs, but sometimes you are willing to trade say cost and false positives to avoid false negatives say, a mass screening for HIV in a blood sample. In that case you need a cheap test and while a false positive has minimal cost a false negative could be deadly.
Highering is the opposite case. Micdonalds want's a cheap test (interview + background) and as long they get enough acceptable low level candidate from their pool that's enough.
As such the turing test can fit the second example. A hypothetical AI could hold a huge range of real jobs even if limited to purely text based communications.
PS: Let's flip it. A super intelligent AI in a box that can't communicate in any form. Without IO it's indistinguishable from a space heater.
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#105In English, probably.
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#106Perhaps the folks at Microsoft's Lync (named after this gentleman, [1], no doubt) or maybe it's Skype for Business now could get some of this research.
We have this at work (alas), and it does "transcription" of voicemail, which it sends as an email. It's easily 90% wrong, regardless of speaker, unless it's a slightly bad connection, when it's worse.
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand what your example here about common language rebuts - that's something that would be solved for in the premise of the test, or it's not a fair test. Is your argument that that person is still intelligent even if they've failed the test? Because that's the entirety of my point - the Turing test does not return a measure of intelligence, but of communicability. Or is your point that if such a person…
No, the point is false negatives don't invalidate a test. It requires both intelligence and communication abilities. Cost and accuracy are obvious trade-offs, but sometimes you are willing to trade say cost and false positives to avoid false negatives say, a mass screening for HIV in a blood sample. In that case you need a cheap test and while a false positive has minimal cost a false negative could be deadly. Higher…
Your last example of the hyperintelligent space heater is exactly my point - the Turing test is a test of the (necessary) precondition of communication, but NOT a sufficient test of intelligence. In your example, the black box AI is assumed to be intelligent, but would still fail the Turing test - because intelligence is not a necessary condition for passing. Communicability IS necessary for the test.
A passing grade on the Turing test just indicates intelligence is possible, but excludes assured intelligence in the absence of communication ability, which is why I argue it is not a sufficient guarantee of intelligence.
You make a good point with the hiring example about the distinction between "intelligent" and "intelligent enough to do some things" - our disagreement may be stemming from us having differing definitions of "an intelligence". Need to think about it.
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the point is false negatives don't invalidate a test. It requires both intelligence and communication abilities. Cost and accuracy are obvious trade-offs, but sometimes you are willing to trade say cost and false positives to avoid false negatives say, a mass screening for HIV in a blood sample. In that case you need a cheap test and while a false positive has minimal cost a false negative could be deadly. Higher…
Your last example of the hyperintelligent space heater is exactly my point - the Turing test is a test of the (necessary) precondition of communication, but NOT a sufficient test of intelligence. In your example, the black box AI is assumed to be intelligent, but would still fail the Turing test - because intelligence is not a necessary condition for passing. Communicability IS necessary for the test. A passing grade…
Nothing you just said invalidates the test.
X is a demonstration of intelligence says nothing about not X.
If you can design something that passes an arbitrary touring tests yes it is intelligent. For example I could teach it any subject that works in text format. It could then pass an open ended essay test. And get a reasonable essay.
Now, you could do the same thing with a pig and it would fail the test despite being more intelligent than the average dog. That just means there are limits.
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#109I'll admit I'm not very interested in speech recognition of this nature when it can't disambiguate the speaker. ie. the way Amazon Echo and other voice recognition systems can't tell the difference between a human in the room and the TV. Even when one might be clearly a female voice vs. a male. None of the voice recognition systems on the market learn my voice distinctly from my wife's or sons, and I don't want their…
for what it's worth, the "OK Google" functionality in my Android phone is trained against my voice and does a pretty good job at rejecting my wife's and coworkers commands.
Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition
#110Meaning will always escape us when it comes to language. Not only will there always be a disconnect between the speaker and his or her audience, there will always be a subjective perspective that cannot be tapped into. Can AI ever really be compared to a subjective perspective? Although the article recognizes that perfection has not been assumed, parity might not even be a capacity. Conversation is difficult to measu…
In that case, it's already 100% accurate.
Don't confuse handwaving with science.