On 8/9/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >
Classifiers would be created on not just the raw audio or video, but on the output of their readings as well. People would notice that certain outputs are ambiguous but they could then train classifiers (or maybe just rules in certain places) to clear this up. As for the advertising, it wouldn't be that big of a problem because the outputs aren't mostly meant to be seen/read by humans (so there's little incentive to spam), the outputs are mostly meant to trigger alerts (in surveillance), or cause machines to perform some action. There's little you can do against malicious parts of the supply chain, except have trust in that your supplier is reputable. For example your data stored could on on server somewhere could be stolen/tampered/sold, or the plumber that comes to your house might steal things, the only thing you can do is hire someone reputable (that other people trust too). A ratings system like that on ebay would be the best way to deal with it. Regarding cempeting to buy information - I'm not suggesting that at all, people would be competing to sell the services of their classifier (and shopping around for the best classifier to consume or build on). It would be like the web services model - like for example at strikeiron.com ------------------------------------------- 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
