5 ms·
Potentially there would be a way for both sides to recognize that the other side is a machine and they could switch to binary communication.
by ChristianGeek 8y ago
Potentially there would be a way for both sides to recognize that the other side is a machine and they could switch to binary communication.
- dannyw 8y agoBinary communication isn't useful by itself. You need a compatible protocol and API. I can give you 010101010101101011111 to a machine all I want, if they don't know how it's formatted, it's useless. Conversational English is a format.
- cezart 8y agoWell they could at least continue doing the same thing, at 100x the speed.
- scrollaway 8y agoOver the phone? Voice recognition would fail even more. Google also mentioned some of the latency in answering is required by their processing.
- Piskvorrr 8y agoDoes this sound look familiar? ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvr9AMWEU-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvr9AMWEU-c In other words, if M2M handshake works, switch away from voice.
- dmihal 8y agoThe simplest "API" would be skipping the text-to-speech-to-text process, and send the text string in binary.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> Conversational English is a format. And as you said, format isn't enough. You need semantics. If two applications know enough about the other side to know how to formulate their voice queries, they know at least enough to exchange those same queries as text, and skip the stupidly wasteful text->speech->text process. (And if world wouldn't be so full of adversarial practices driving engineering stupidity, the developers would agree on an efficient binary format beforehand.)