> Do you want to have a good faith conversation about this? Because going back to debating the meaning of "understanding" after I already said this was misleading is not a good way to have a conversation.
Call it "understanding", call it "content aware analysis". I guarantee that their closed captioning service has much more of that quality than this new feature does.
> Can we set up a baseline that there is a difference between content agnostic analysis and content aware analysis? Transcripts are content agnostic in that they can be produced without any comprehension of the words said. This feature is content aware in that it is looking for specific meaning in the words said. Do you not see any difference between these two?
Again, I don't see it. CCs are not content agnostic: they have to have semantic understanding of the words said in order to produce accurate results. How do you think CCs differentiate between the words "to", "too" and "two" without looking at the surrounding words and having some idea of contextual usage? How do you think CCs can tell between "there" and "they're" without understanding if the speaker is referring to a person or a location? This is only the tip of the iceberg as to how CCs actually work, and more "content aware analysis" will always lead to more accurate CCs.