Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Does this run locally or on Google's servers? (Score 1) 271

You may not realise that speech recognisers need training data. And there is no data like more data. A year ago someone from Google told me that they trained their recogniser on 1000 hours of voice searches. If every utterance is a couple of seconds long, that's a lot of recordings. When you do a voice search, you can select from a number of recognition hypotheses. This is how they get transcribed data.

They also need to train on your voice specifically before you get decent recognition performance. I found that after a while my phone became surprisingly good at decoding my speech. I do agree the privacy aspect is a concern, but in this case at least you benefit personally from Google storing your data.

Comment Trick: re-speak it yourself (Score 2, Interesting) 221

I'm doing my PhD on speech recognition. I think (and hope!) it's neither dead nor fully developed. Currently, changes of environment screw speech recognisers up. Different speakers, background noise... A trick that I heard has been used for subtitling television broadcasts is to have someone re-speak the words (which is not that hard). You could play the audio recordings on your headphones while repeating them into a microphone. If you're in a quiet room and the recogniser is trained on your voice, that may get you most of the way. You'll still want to correct transcriptions manually.

I don't know of any good trained open-source speech recognisers. There are open-source back-ends like Sphinx or HTK (which I sort of work on) but you need massive transcribed training corpora to train a speech recogniser. This is expensive which I guess is why open-source speech recognition hasn't taken off. In the speech recognition group at my university, most people use Linux, and I don't think anyone actually uses a speech recogniser in their daily work.

Comment Re:People definitely neglect science... (Score 1) 656

The education system, I'd say across the world is completely outdated and is a perfect example of a government run system.

Let me guess. Your world is constrained to North-America?

Even with all the technological advances available to schools, we still use the 17th century lecture style instruction method across the globe. We cram 30 students into the room with 1 teacher, and force everyone to learn at one pace: from the smartest to the dumbest.

In countries like the Netherlands and Germany, there are three or four different tracks for students aged 12-18. Around 15% follow the "pre-university" track in the Netherlands. It worked well for me, for exactly the reasons you give.

You wont get this though. Because we live in a world that demands "social justice" aka: forcing the smartest to be clumped in with the dumbest and the laziest.

I don't know where you get your idea of social justice from. Social justice would be to mix rich and poor in a classroom.

Comment Re:A friendly warning from an American (Score 1) 516

2 - Republicans don't go to war more then Democrats. Both parties voted to go to war. People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11. Bush pushed for diplomacy and intel. That intel concluded that Saddam had no ties to 9/11. A warmonger strikes while the iron is hot, not pushes for diplomacy for a few more years.

I can't stand to see such blatant deception moderated so highly. Bush and his cabinet pushed for war, and manipulated intelligence to make it look more desirable. No one ever suggested that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11; rather, Bush's administration manipulated evidence to falsely suggest that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

You may be one of these people who pay attention to the facts. However, many Americans at the time didn't, and believed that Saddam was behind the attacks. See this article in Political Science and Politics, 2004.

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...