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

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#121

Post by imh »

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.

FYI about your edit: You aren't being downvoted because of "knee-jerk culture war" or because people here are too dumb to understand your enlightened view of epistemology. Your original comment is an incredibly unique view with no explanation that people probably disagree with, and your edit makes you sound petulant, like you can't handle disagreement. That's the reason for the downvotes.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#122

Post by [deleted] »

Eridrus wrote: post #3

The actual paper has a section on error analysis that is particularly enlightening: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.05256 On the CallHome dataset humans confuse words 4.1% of the time, but delete 6.5% of words, most commonly deleting the word "I". Their ASR system confuses 6.5% of words on this dataset, but only deletes 3.3% of words, so depending on how you view this their claim about being better than humans isn't defin…

[deleted]

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#123

Post by ArkyBeagle »

ralusek wrote: post #44
PravlageTiem wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emerg…

For Artificial Intelligence to believe in God would be for it to believe in its makers, which are human. A machine would be intelligent to be aware that it was made by man. A man doesn't need to believe in God to be intelligent. In fact, the two are pretty much inversely related.

There are a lot of very smart people who are at at least Deist levels of faith. I'd say it's orthogonal. An example? C.S. Lewis.

There is nothing wrong with that sort of metaphor, no matter how much stress you place on it. If you think of religion as a technology, then it can be abused but the abuse doesn't mean it's bad.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#125

Post by ArkyBeagle »

eb0la wrote: post #39

Knowing Microsoft this will be part of Cortana in a few weeks. I hope it will be integrated soon with the Speech API as well ( https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh361633(v=office.1... ).

They'll still call it Cortana?

I rather like Cortana, but it seems to get a lot of hate - comparisons to MS BOB and what not.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#126

Post by skoocda »

braindead_in wrote: post #115
skoocda wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're close to an alpha release of Spreza, which might be relevant to your question. Look us up! dm me if you've got questions

Very cool. How do you compare to speechmatics?

Very similar accuracy, timing and alignment. We don't do speaker diarization at all because the results seem consistently weak, even among the competitors such as Speechmatics. I'd hazard to say our web editor is much better for providing an end-to-end solution, where accuracy and verification matters.

If I may ask, what software does your team use at Scribie?

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#127

Post by xdh168 »

Eridrus wrote: post #3

The actual paper has a section on error analysis that is particularly enlightening: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.05256 On the CallHome dataset humans confuse words 4.1% of the time, but delete 6.5% of words, most commonly deleting the word "I". Their ASR system confuses 6.5% of words on this dataset, but only deletes 3.3% of words, so depending on how you view this their claim about being better than humans isn't defin…

The conversational speech has been very difficult. The switchboard task has been around for over 20 years. We used the exact same published data and evaluation protocols. The Human Parity claim on the switchboard task is as scientific as we can be based on the best knowledge of ours.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#128

Post by abecedarius »

arstin wrote: post #88
abecedarius wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turing wasn't trying there to articulate a single target for AI research, he was responding to the claim that artificial minds were not possible even in principle. His response was basically, try this, if in open-ended conversation you couldn't tell one from a human, would you really still say there's no mind there? As you say, that's a really high bar from where we are, then or now. I'm sure Turing's own goals for A…

Yep! The assertion that Turing was setting a "single target for AI research" in the way you're using the phrase was clearly not what he was doing or, I hope, what I said. My intent was the opposite: to draw attention the massive range of "targets for research" which are already implicit in the original Turing Test in order to note that saying "there's still lots more to do" is hardly "moving the goalpost". Just to li…

Agreed, and you're right that I mistook your intent.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#129

Post by derekja »

xdh168 wrote: post #127
Eridrus wrote: post #3

The actual paper has a section on error analysis that is particularly enlightening: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.05256 On the CallHome dataset humans confuse words 4.1% of the time, but delete 6.5% of words, most commonly deleting the word "I". Their ASR system confuses 6.5% of words on this dataset, but only deletes 3.3% of words, so depending on how you view this their claim about being better than humans isn't defin…

The conversational speech has been very difficult. The switchboard task has been around for over 20 years. We used the exact same published data and evaluation protocols. The Human Parity claim on the switchboard task is as scientific as we can be based on the best knowledge of ours.

Ah, you finally made a hackernews account! Congrats, XD, that's a great milestone you guys hit.

Re: Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

#130

Post by braindead_in »

I run an human powered transcription service and I get really excited on such news. Typing is the first step of our process (of four) and any ASR system which can generate even around 80% accurate transcript of a file will be incredibly useful. We have tried several systems but unfortunately none have been able to get there yet.
Post reply on HN