i wonder if there's a constant average reading speed (in terms of bits per second) across written languages. chinese is obviously more dense per symbol than english, but is each character processed more slowly as a result, preserving constant data rate across languages? also interesting to consider how much harder real time, verbal translation would be if data rates differed.
Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
181–190 of 263 posts
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#182This is really cool. I am working in a related area and I think most of us have assumed that on average, the information rate is 'about the same' for the languages across the world. So it's exciting to see that their results confirm this assumption. Two qualifying remarks. 1) The 'about the same' is important. Even in their data, there is still quite some variance. They found an average of 39bits, with a stdev of 5.…
Why did everyone assume it would be the same on average? This seems weird to me. Also, can you explain more about how the information density was calculated? Anything at the bit level seems crazy small to me. Words convey a lot of information. They cause your brain to create images, sounds, emotions, smells, etc. I guess we're calling language a compression of that? But even still, bits seems small.
I think there is a distinction between "flux of incoming information" and "net knowledge gained by human as a result of incoming information".
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the blind dev who refactored a huge chunk of the Rust compiler [0]. I'm at roughly 800 words a minute with a synth, with the proven ability to top out at 1219. 800 or so is the norm among programmers. In order to get it we normally end up using older synths which sound way less natural because modern synthesis techniques can't go that fast. There's a trade-off between natural sounding and 500+ words a minute, and…
And as a followup to that--because really this is the weird part--some circles of blind people (including mine) talk faster between ourselves. That's not common, but it happens. I still sometimes have to remember that other people can't digest technical content at the rate I say it and remember to slow down. A good way to bring it out is to have me try to explain a technical concept that I understand really well. I h…
That's awesome. It reminds me of the Bynars in Star Trek, who evolved ultra-fast spoken language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52_iSQnB6W0
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#184But, 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'm the blind dev who refactored a huge chunk of the Rust compiler [0]. I'm at roughly 800 words a minute with a synth, with the proven ability to top out at 1219. 800 or so is the norm among programmers. In order to get it we normally end up using older synths which sound way less natural because modern synthesis techniques can't go that fast. There's a trade-off between natural sounding and 500+ words a minute, and…
I can't find any recordings of 800 WPM synths. Would it be possible for you to make one? I'm curious of what it sounds like.
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#185Apologies for being harsh, but this kind of thing is the phrenology of our time. I know it's utterly conventional to think this way about language in some circles that present themselves as doing legitimate science, but the view that you can calculate the amount of information in human speech, except in a super-technical sense that doesn't match any of the reporting on this study or the way people are interpreting it…
They aren't talking about the semantic information of the word "trump". They explain the methodology for calculating information, and it's per syllable (based on the number of distinct syllables that are part of the language's phonetics). So, for English speakers, 'trump' has exactly 7 bits in it. That exact syllable may or may not exist in another language, but if so the same singly syllabic word "trump" would have a different number of bits to a speaker of that language. Maybe next time RTA?
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#186I doubt that there's a universal rate - a universal mean (within the context of a shared language) makes more sense.
Every conversation acts as its own handshaking algorithm from which context is derived, and contexts will vary greatly in terms of amount of language required to convey concepts.
Jargon rich conversations between experts have the potential to transfer information at a rate far greater than average.
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#187Apologies for being harsh, but this kind of thing is the phrenology of our time. I know it's utterly conventional to think this way about language in some circles that present themselves as doing legitimate science, but the view that you can calculate the amount of information in human speech, except in a super-technical sense that doesn't match any of the reporting on this study or the way people are interpreting it…
They aren't talking about the semantic information of the word "trump". They explain the methodology for calculating information, and it's per syllable (based on the number of distinct syllables that are part of the language's phonetics). So, for English speakers, 'trump' has exactly 7 bits in it. That exact syllable may or may not exist in another language, but if so the same singly syllabic word "trump" would have…
s/exactly 7/a little more than 7/
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#188Apologies for being harsh, but this kind of thing is the phrenology of our time. I know it's utterly conventional to think this way about language in some circles that present themselves as doing legitimate science, but the view that you can calculate the amount of information in human speech, except in a super-technical sense that doesn't match any of the reporting on this study or the way people are interpreting it…
[deleted]
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#189Apologies for being harsh, but this kind of thing is the phrenology of our time. I know it's utterly conventional to think this way about language in some circles that present themselves as doing legitimate science, but the view that you can calculate the amount of information in human speech, except in a super-technical sense that doesn't match any of the reporting on this study or the way people are interpreting it…
They aren't talking about the semantic information of the word "trump". They explain the methodology for calculating information, and it's per syllable (based on the number of distinct syllables that are part of the language's phonetics). So, for English speakers, 'trump' has exactly 7 bits in it. That exact syllable may or may not exist in another language, but if so the same singly syllabic word "trump" would have…
In other words, they aren't factoring in compression.
Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the blind dev who refactored a huge chunk of the Rust compiler [0]. I'm at roughly 800 words a minute with a synth, with the proven ability to top out at 1219. 800 or so is the norm among programmers. In order to get it we normally end up using older synths which sound way less natural because modern synthesis techniques can't go that fast. There's a trade-off between natural sounding and 500+ words a minute, and…
I can't find any recordings of 800 WPM synths. Would it be possible for you to make one? I'm curious of what it sounds like.
I don't think it'd be legal for me to hand you an espeak recording, but it works fine at 800WPM.
espeak -s 800 "Things to say."