>But the issue is that you effectively building in your assumptions about what is 'representative' into your sample. Even if I agree with your premise, Google

>But the issue is that you effectively building in your assumptions about what is 'representative' into your sample. Even if I agree with your premise, Google is not going to build a custom voice model for every individual anyway. There will be simplifications made. There will be assumptions made, and they will end up with a representative model anyway. So you're actually just bolstering my point. It makes a ton of sense to record people in a known, controlled environment and tweak variables one by one- such as the size of the room, the location of the microphone, introducing varying amounts of background chatter, etc etc. This is how normal science happens all the time, and it has worked for us so far. And we haven't even addressed the ethics of spying on people in such a blatant manner. That is a whole another conversation. > 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. Modelling aggregate human behavior/psychology is not a proper science. The same is true of macro economics and other such non-exact fields. Problems in those fields do not apply across other fields.