8 ms·

The human error rate on this task is 4% (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/387e/7349b8e31e316c2a7380603d1b6c0b1417c8.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/387e/73

by pesenti 10y ago

The human error rate on this task is 4% (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/387e/7349b8e31e316c2a7380603d1b6c0b1417c8.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/387e/7349b8e31e316c2a738060...). So you are basically saying that telephones are a useless interface... What is amazing is how consistently people overestimate human performance.

Swizec 10y ago
Compared to voice over internet? Yeah, it's pretty terrible.
M_Grey 10y ago
http://www.utdallas.edu/~assmann/hcs6367/lippmann97.pdf http://www.utdallas.edu/~assmann/hcs6367/lippmann97.pdf I did say "primary interface" as well, which definitely rules out a mediocre phone connection.
- contextfree 10y ago
  Does using speech multimodally with other input methods (touch, gesture, pen, clicker, game controller, even keyboard - may seem silly but speech is potentially faster at some tasks) still count as "primary" if the other input method is used supplementarily to help disambiguate?
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I'd say, and let be clear that I know and accept this to be a relatively arbitrary distinction on my part, that for an input to be "primary" it needs to be able to stand alone (touchscreen input, keyboard and mouse, etc). That's not to say that it must stand alone, but that when all other options are off the table, that would be your preferred method for text/data entry. That's a troublesome definition though at least in part for reasons you've brought up or alluded to, which is that a multimodal approach is pretty clearly going to dominate. That said, speech recognition at least stands to replace the keyboard for say, the author of a book or article, if it's good enough.
drspacemonkey 10y ago
Happens all the time with autonomous driving. I've heard so many people argue that self-driving cars need to be 100% perfect, but they always overlook that humans aren't anywhere near 100% perfect drivers. Frankly, we're lousy drivers.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That's the point though... people who want 100% perfect automation have no leg to stand on when presented with a more reliable option than a human. That's not the case with speech recognition yet, and I'd say as a result people would be well justified in demanding at least as much capability as they're capable of themselves.
  - taneq 10y ago
    Really? I expect there to be huge resistance to driverless cars (at first) as people come up with crazy scenarios in which they're certain that their own elite driving skills could save them but the car could not. Then there'll be a reversal as people start to actually accept that the car is a better driver than they are, and surprisingly quickly they'll start saying anyone who wants to drive manually is a dangerous egotist.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Maybe, but the "upside" of humans being such terrible drivers is that we've almost all either gotten into a bad accident, or know someone close who has. The fact that it's not going to be hard to empirically prove a difference between machine reliability in this case, and human reliability may help as well. Unfortunately... I think the big issue is going to be pure anxiety; a bigger and more immediate form of what a lot of people experience on an airplane. Giving up even the illusion of control is supremely hard for us as a species, in general. Then there's just the fact that as a species we're terrible at risk assessment. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...
- jmde 10y ago

by pesenti 10y ago

Swizec 10y ago

Compared to voice over internet? Yeah, it's pretty terrible.

M_Grey 10y ago

http://www.utdallas.edu/~assmann/hcs6367/lippmann97.pdf http://www.utdallas.edu/~assmann/hcs6367/lippmann97.pdf I did say "primary interface" as well, which definitely rules out a mediocre phone connection.

contextfree 10y ago
Does using speech multimodally with other input methods (touch, gesture, pen, clicker, game controller, even keyboard - may seem silly but speech is potentially faster at some tasks) still count as "primary" if the other input method is used supplementarily to help disambiguate?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I'd say, and let be clear that I know and accept this to be a relatively arbitrary distinction on my part, that for an input to be "primary" it needs to be able to stand alone (touchscreen input, keyboard and mouse, etc). That's not to say that it must stand alone, but that when all other options are off the table, that would be your preferred method for text/data entry. That's a troublesome definition though at least in part for reasons you've brought up or alluded to, which is that a multimodal approach is pretty clearly going to dominate. That said, speech recognition at least stands to replace the keyboard for say, the author of a book or article, if it's good enough.

drspacemonkey 10y ago

Happens all the time with autonomous driving. I've heard so many people argue that self-driving cars need to be 100% perfect, but they always overlook that humans aren't anywhere near 100% perfect drivers. Frankly, we're lousy drivers.

M_Grey 10y ago
That's the point though... people who want 100% perfect automation have no leg to stand on when presented with a more reliable option than a human. That's not the case with speech recognition yet, and I'd say as a result people would be well justified in demanding at least as much capability as they're capable of themselves.
- taneq 10y ago
  Really? I expect there to be huge resistance to driverless cars (at first) as people come up with crazy scenarios in which they're certain that their own elite driving skills could save them but the car could not. Then there'll be a reversal as people start to actually accept that the car is a better driver than they are, and surprisingly quickly they'll start saying anyone who wants to drive manually is a dangerous egotist.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Maybe, but the "upside" of humans being such terrible drivers is that we've almost all either gotten into a bad accident, or know someone close who has. The fact that it's not going to be hard to empirically prove a difference between machine reliability in this case, and human reliability may help as well. Unfortunately... I think the big issue is going to be pure anxiety; a bigger and more immediate form of what a lot of people experience on an airplane. Giving up even the illusion of control is supremely hard for us as a species, in general. Then there's just the fact that as a species we're terrible at risk assessment. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...
jmde 10y ago