3 ms·
They are something like 95% right, 1 wrong in 20[], which is pretty often. But in a face to face conversation, with so much non-verbal communication going on, i
by hyperpallium 10y ago
They are something like 95% right, 1 wrong in 20[], which is pretty often. But in a face to face conversation, with so much non-verbal communication going on, it may be more than enough. Very different from cold, isolated translation or online.
It's certainly far ahead of having no language, or trying to look up a phrase book.
BTW It's like "word lens" for audio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Lens https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Lens Google bought and made it free. I've tried it, and it works, it's very cool. But I don't know if it's actually that useful, or even gets used much, in the field.
[] EDIT sorry, those figures were just for speech recognition!
- piyush_soni 10y ago> They are something like 95% right, 1 wrong in 20 Which set of languages is this stat about? For example, trying English with Hindi (they don't support it right now), though Google Translate is impressive, there are still a lot of mistakes (much more than 1 in 20). For English to Spanish, I assume the error rate would be lesser in comparison.
- samastur 10y agoIt isn't that better. Admittedly I am only learning Spanish, but I get odd or incorrect translations far more often than 1 in 20 and because I am a beginner, I don't throw really difficult cases at it. This is also text only use so ignoring things like accents (was that a p, v or b?) which can make the whole thing even more difficult. For other languages, like my native Slovenian, it is even more ridiculous.