3 ms·

"Nuance and similar companies used to do are still competitive" Surprised. Curious if you can compare the inference per joules of Google 1st gen TPUs compared

"Nuance and similar companies used to do are still competitive" Surprised. Curious if you can compare the inference per joules of Google 1st gen TPUs compared? Google shared a paper and the numbers are pretty impressive and was not aware of anyone else close to the gen 1 TPUs? Here is the paper that you can use for the TPU side. Love so see someone else in the ball park? We really do not want just one company but competition. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1704/1704.04760.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1704/1704.04760.pdf

taeric 9y ago
This seems to be comparing them on their own terms. In more curious on features. Dragon naturally speaking and some other products have been really impressive for years now. Far beyond what my phone is capable of. Not to say that the likes of the echo and others aren't impressive. Just that the speech recognition is the least of those products. Fully transcribed voice mail was available for years with Google voice (even before it was Google voice), yet that seems to happen less now than it did when I first for the product. So what changed? And why?
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  What? You are comparing processing a NN. How is that comparing on "own terms"?
  - taeric 9y ago
    Did the old methods use neutral networks? I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but I would be surprised if they were as deep of networks as what people use today. That is, I am interested in comparing them on speed of transcription, speech synthesises, error rates, etc. Not on speed of network execution.
    - jacksmith21006 9y ago
      No the old method did NOT use NN. I hope Google writes a paper and shares more details. It is hard to believe they are able to do 16k samples a second through a NN even with the TPUs. So be curious to see if reduced and how much? If they really do have the ability to do 16k a second at scale that opens the door for all kinds of other applications.

taeric 9y ago

This seems to be comparing them on their own terms. In more curious on features. Dragon naturally speaking and some other products have been really impressive for years now. Far beyond what my phone is capable of. Not to say that the likes of the echo and others aren't impressive. Just that the speech recognition is the least of those products. Fully transcribed voice mail was available for years with Google voice (even before it was Google voice), yet that seems to happen less now than it did when I first for the product. So what changed? And why?

jacksmith21006 9y ago
What? You are comparing processing a NN. How is that comparing on "own terms"?
- taeric 9y ago
  Did the old methods use neutral networks? I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but I would be surprised if they were as deep of networks as what people use today. That is, I am interested in comparing them on speed of transcription, speech synthesises, error rates, etc. Not on speed of network execution.
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    No the old method did NOT use NN. I hope Google writes a paper and shares more details. It is hard to believe they are able to do 16k samples a second through a NN even with the TPUs. So be curious to see if reduced and how much? If they really do have the ability to do 16k a second at scale that opens the door for all kinds of other applications.