5 ms·

How about Google PAY MONEY to generate training data or gather it from informed people? (“Make $100 by recording your voice for Google’s machine learning algori

• duiker101 7y ago
  Why spend money when you can just use dark patterns? the backslash will probably be cheaper because the average customer doesn't care anyway!
• tbrownaw 7y ago
  Maybe if you get you training data by some very different source than your real data comes from, it won't be representative and won't work very well?
  • anbop 7y ago
    Figure out how to run your business unit ethically or shut down the business unit. They don’t have the right to turn their transfer learning problem into an abusive privacy policy.
  • thekyle 7y ago
    Yes, if they just paid people to record their voice they would not get training data for real use cases. I cannot find the blog post now, but quite a few years ago I recall some Google employees noticed a large number of queries for "cha cha cha cha cha..." from Android users in New York. All of the queries were done using voice search, so they listened to a few of the recordings. It turns out that their speech-to-text models were interpreting the sound of the NYC metro pulling into a station as speech. Obviously they didn't have enough training data of people trying to talk next to a train.
  • la_barba 7y ago
    We test our medicines on a small group that is representative of the entire worlds population. We build soil models based on sampling a small region. We don't test your entire blood to do a medical test. I don't know what you mean by "real data", but representative sampling is how work gets done in every single domain in the world. Google can do this.
    • RosanaAnaDana 7y ago
      Yeah no. Representative sampling is how we formerly did this kind of work. It wasn't particularly good or effective, but we didn't have the methods or compute to go beyond that. No longer.
      • la_barba 7y ago
        You're free to have your own opinion, but anything specific beyond "it doesn't work"? I work in pharma, and we use representative sampling every single day in every single thing we do, and it works.
        • RosanaAnaDana 7y ago
          Representative sampling, does 'work' in the sense that it may or may not 'prove' whatever it is you had a question about. But the issue is that you effectively building in your assumptions about what is 'representative' into your sample. Its (imo) the central issue in the reproducibility crisis: our assumptions about the world and how that impacts the questions we ask about it. It was previously intractable to do a census rather than a sample, and maybe for your purposes a sample is good enough or a census remains intractable. In my field , this is how things were done for decades (and still largely is), and even though (imo) it did a piss-poor job, it was good enough for some purposes. As piss-poor job is still better than knowing nothing. Maybe this is good enough for your purposes. There's a third way however, which is to move beyond sampling and to perform a census. This is the difference I'm speaking of. We're at the point where we don't have to sample because we can measure. Effectively, this is what modern data science is. We've always had the ability to sample and interpolate. It doesn't work very well (imo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) and usually is reflecting back to us something about our assumptions in how we sampled. But thats just it. We don't have to rely on a sample if we can take a census.
• Illniyar 7y ago
  I'm sure they did. And probably still do. But no amount of paid for training data is going to cover all situations that occur in real life. Accents, mannerism, speech imperments - you can't cover all possible premutations.
• 8675309t 7y ago
  or at the very least allow people to opt out? pay to opt out?