3 ms·

Just the other day I was arguing (pleasantly) with someone here on HN saying that AI has solved speech rec (among other tasks). https://news.ycombinator.com/it

Just the other day I was arguing (pleasantly) with someone here on HN saying that AI has solved speech rec (among other tasks). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429287 Wish this article was written a few days earlier. An analogue of this article exists for most other domains claimed to have been solved.

throwmenow_0140 9y ago
Sorry to bother you, but the translation of your comment is pretty good (English -> Spanish -> French -> English): No, it's not learning new classes of objects from a single image or a few images is very difficult. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6266/1332.short The machine translation is a joke. Put comments on this page by translating Google into another language and go back to English and see what you get. I did a little part of you. Just human level for just a simple little prayer. > But even if you do not make this assumption, identifying the object involves spitting the distance from the performance of the human level. source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429862 Not to debunk your claims, just interesting to see how good translation works (even if it's not human-level, I can understand what you say).
- cscurmudgeon 9y ago
  I am not sure that is a good translation because it completely misses a common idiom: "within spitting distance" "spitting the distance from the performance of the human level" If this were spoken out loud, it might get mistaken for "splitting the distance" which seems to have a different meaning (half as good as humans). But the point is subtle differences matter a lot in human communication. But, I do agree with your point that in a lot of cases even without human-level performance one can get things done.
  - throwmenow_0140 9y ago
    After reading the translated version again, I'm not sure I can support my statement anymore. I think a big part of my impression was based on the fact the I read the original comment and knew what you were talking about. > I did a little part of you. Just human level for just a simple little prayer. It's just bad. It sounds like it's based on a n-gram model - about something religious, strangely enough.

throwmenow_0140 9y ago

Sorry to bother you, but the translation of your comment is pretty good (English -> Spanish -> French -> English): No, it's not learning new classes of objects from a single image or a few images is very difficult. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6266/1332.short The machine translation is a joke. Put comments on this page by translating Google into another language and go back to English and see what you get. I did a little part of you. Just human level for just a simple little prayer. > But even if you do not make this assumption, identifying the object involves spitting the distance from the performance of the human level. source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429862 Not to debunk your claims, just interesting to see how good translation works (even if it's not human-level, I can understand what you say).

cscurmudgeon 9y ago
I am not sure that is a good translation because it completely misses a common idiom: "within spitting distance" "spitting the distance from the performance of the human level" If this were spoken out loud, it might get mistaken for "splitting the distance" which seems to have a different meaning (half as good as humans). But the point is subtle differences matter a lot in human communication. But, I do agree with your point that in a lot of cases even without human-level performance one can get things done.
- throwmenow_0140 9y ago
  After reading the translated version again, I'm not sure I can support my statement anymore. I think a big part of my impression was based on the fact the I read the original comment and knew what you were talking about. > I did a little part of you. Just human level for just a simple little prayer. It's just bad. It sounds like it's based on a n-gram model - about something religious, strangely enough.