41–50 of 263 posts
Maybe humans can only transmit information as fast as they can think of it?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/106732.The_User_Illusion
But, he says, instead of being limited by how quickly we can process information by listening, we’re likely limited by how quickly we can gather our thoughts. That’s because, he says, the average person can listen to audio recordings sped up to about 120%—and still have no problems with comprehension. Some years ago I worked on an accessibility project for an app and website designed for people with disabilities. One…
Here’s a blind programmer using Visual Studio with a ridiculously fast TTS: https://youtu.be/94swlF55tVc
I'm a bit confused, here. (I went and looked at the original paper.) They estimated information density for each of the subject languages as a whole, on average: > In parallel, from independently available written corpora in these languages, we estimated each language’s information density (ID) as the syllable conditional entropy to take word-internal syllable-bigram dependencies into account. But the experiment uses…
I suppose that the experiment wants to capture the actual 'information density' of the language, and hence looks at the full language. Then, they want to avoid any modification in speech rate due to the semantics of the spoken text.
This does not make sense for a hypothesis where the actual bit-rate of speech tends towards 39 b/s. That is, when your text happens to convey more bits, you slow down.
However, for an alternative hypothesis, this design does make sense. The idea here is that a language naturally converges to a speech-rate that gives 39 b/s. The idea here is that the actual speech-rate is much more constant, and just drops until it becomes too fast. For that, I'd argue you don't want the mean bit-rate but something like the 90th percentile bit-rate. Because it seems to me that speech-rate that is 'too fast' more than 10% of the time would not really be natural.
39.15/64 = phi
Being able to convey emotion with tone in speech likely adds a lot more "information".
The increased information density in tonal language appears to be offset by a reduced speaking rate [0]. [0] http://ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/Pellegrino_...
39.15/64 = phi
So here is my own experience. I was avid audio book fan for last 3 years and while ago some guy on reddit told me about how he listen books on Audible using high-speed option like 2.x. I never tried that before last summer since at higher speed speech become incomprehensible for me. What this guy told me is that it's just take time to adjust to it. So I basically started to listen for books at slightly higher speed.…
But, he says, instead of being limited by how quickly we can process information by listening, we’re likely limited by how quickly we can gather our thoughts. That’s because, he says, the average person can listen to audio recordings sped up to about 120%—and still have no problems with comprehension. Some years ago I worked on an accessibility project for an app and website designed for people with disabilities. One…
I think anyone can get to 3x but it takes some time to adjust to faster and faster speeds. It also depends on what you are doing while listening. Distractions or listening while doing something else (driving for example) lowers my ability to comprehend. For example on the interstate without much traffic I'll listen to audiobooks at 3x, but in a city or a crowded highway I have to slow it down.
But, he says, instead of being limited by how quickly we can process information by listening, we’re likely limited by how quickly we can gather our thoughts. That’s because, he says, the average person can listen to audio recordings sped up to about 120%—and still have no problems with comprehension. Some years ago I worked on an accessibility project for an app and website designed for people with disabilities. One…
I just don't get the point. If you can process content much faster than it was meant to be played, it doesn't mean you're learning much faster than you could, it means the novel information density is low. Any content that can be sped up that much without loss is not worth listening to in the first place. You're just skipping the trite cliches, filler, and obvious facts.
I can read fast, and I typically go through fluffy NYT bestseller nonfiction at 600 WPM. But when I do this I constantly have a sneaking suspicion that I'm just wasting my time. When I read a good book full of new ideas, I barely go at 150 WPM, but the time always feels well-spent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human speech uses the extremely dense lossy compression method called "A Lifetime of Experience and Biases"
It's only lossy when the decoder's dictionary doesn't have a similar volume of data points to properly reinflate the data stream. Things that didn't make sense to me as a teen make far too much sense now because my experience can properly contextualize the old data.