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

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#141

Post by aninhumer »

PravlageTiem wrote: post #94
aninhumer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Believing in a god is unique to the human species. No other animal does this. Do you have some evidence of that? And even if it's true, is it the only thing that's unique to humans? Indeed, I suspect the interesting part of "believe in god" in terms of intelligence is probably "construct narratives". Assigning a high probability to those narratives reflecting reality (i.e. believing) seems like an aside to the main…

The best case for animals demonstrating religious behavior (which is fundamentally different than believing in a god, mind you) is from a very convoluted interpretation of a food coma. http://bigthink.com/videos/can-animals-be-religious Outside of that considerable stretching, it doesn't exist. Also, I challenge your premise that conflates "belief" with "constructing narratives" Do you believe you will be alive tomor…

>Also, I challenge your premise that conflates "belief" with "constructing narratives"

I didn't conflate belief and narratives, I conflated belief with assigning high probability to those narratives. Sure, there are also simpler predictions we can estimate as well, but I think the thing that makes "belief in god" interesting from the perspective of judging intelligence is the complexity of the narrative.

>Outside of that considerable stretching, it doesn't exist.

What evidence would convince you that an animal "believed in god"?

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#142

Post by makomk »

Retric wrote: post #108
gingerrr wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bei…

This is one of the practical limits of the Turing Test as usually proposed - the parties could just refuse to jump through the hoop of writing an essay, and that would be a perfectly normal reaction. In practice, attempts to pass the Turing Test have leaned heavily on hand-coded strategies for changing the subject and feigning refusal to co-operate, with some success - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Goostman

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#143

Post by circlefavshape »

PravlageTiem wrote: post #94
aninhumer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Believing in a god is unique to the human species. No other animal does this. Do you have some evidence of that? And even if it's true, is it the only thing that's unique to humans? Indeed, I suspect the interesting part of "believe in god" in terms of intelligence is probably "construct narratives". Assigning a high probability to those narratives reflecting reality (i.e. believing) seems like an aside to the main…

The best case for animals demonstrating religious behavior (which is fundamentally different than believing in a god, mind you) is from a very convoluted interpretation of a food coma. http://bigthink.com/videos/can-animals-be-religious Outside of that considerable stretching, it doesn't exist. Also, I challenge your premise that conflates "belief" with "constructing narratives" Do you believe you will be alive tomor…

Do you alone in the world know what animals are thinking?

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#146

Post by ankitbko »

ar15saveslives wrote: post #68
ChuckMcM wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did post the code on github ( https://github.com/Microsoft/CNTK ) with the Microsoft open source license. Presumably you could feed it speech from a running instance of gnu-radio.

CNTK is just a toolkit, like tensorflow or theano. Code for the paper was not published.

I guess it would come in https://www.cris.ai/

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#147

Post by ankitbko »

windlep wrote: post #91

I'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…

Well they do have speaker identification. But I don't know how good it is. You may try them out. https://www.microsoft.com/cognitive-services/en-us/speaker-r... They also are having a private preview of CRIS which supports custom acoustic models https://www.cris.ai/

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#148

Post by Retric »

makomk wrote: post #142
Retric wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bei…

This is one of the practical limits of the Turing Test as usually proposed - the parties could just refuse to jump through the hoop of writing an essay, and that would be a perfectly normal reaction. In practice, attempts to pass the Turing Test have leaned heavily on hand-coded strategies for changing the subject and feigning refusal to co-operate, with some success - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene…

What I find most interesting about that strategy is in practice it fails. The strength is it can push people to wait longer before judging. The weakness is it fails to demonstrate intelligence.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#149

Post by WildUtah »

john_oshea wrote: post #70
cloudjacker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was recently at a bar where they showed a movie with incomprehensible subtitles (English to English). I assume this was because they skimped and bought automatic subtitling. I don't think that is possible. Like, worse subtitling isn't even an option.

"Trainspotting" would be an interesting challenge: " rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/31/irvinewelsh>

Don' You Go Rounin' Roun To Re Ro:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/british-movie/n...

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#150

Post by WildUtah »

radarsat1 wrote: post #35

The term "human parity" refers to a comparison of the error rate, which is a single scalar summarizing performance in terms of mistakes made. It says nothing about the kind of mistakes, and I can easily imagine that machines qualitatively do not make at all the same kind of mistakes as humans. I'd be curious to know if the kind of mistakes machines make might strike human listeners as quite stupid, but maybe not.. ma…

The term "human parity" refers to a comparison of the error

The term 'human parity' refers to adding up all the bits in a human and taking the residue to a convenient modulus to detect human error.

Post reply on HN