rick the ponderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm not saying that speech recognition is equivalent to human language understanding, I'm arguing that speech >recognition could be improved to the point it can recognise almost every speaker at an speed in any accent.
To get human level word error rates, you need human level AI. Humans use vast knowledge to fill in missing words, e.g. "the cat caught a m____". >I'm not proposing to solve it with a millions dollars or trillion etc. My argument is the exact opposite, that it is >too large to even be attempted by any set pool of funding. That is my proposal too, but my economic model is different. Information has negative value on average. People don't compete to buy information. Rather they compete for attention. This is not just advertising, but human nature. We have personal websites and write blogs to satisfy our egos. Why would I spend tens of dollars worth of time to bother posting this noncommercial message? A system where you buy the services of a classifier can be exploited. I could put up a server that charged no money, then inject advertising into its output. How do you know which servers to trust? In CMR, peers have to authenticate their identities and establish a reputation for providing useful information. Peers have an incentive to filter messages routed through them and block spam, otherwise they will be blocked by more intelligent peers. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
