4 ms·

If a company doesn't have the kind of technology to effectively transcribe their large volume of videos and the daily rate of uploads, then must they simply sta

If a company doesn't have the kind of technology to effectively transcribe their large volume of videos and the daily rate of uploads, then must they simply start taking down videos? If a company started hiring inhouse to develop such tech, how long would it take?

iso1210 7y ago
Yes, just like if a company doesn't have the technology to keep its workers safe, it must stop putting them at risk
- logicchains 7y ago
  I don't see the similarity. If we go from blind people suffering from not having access to the audio transcription, to everybody suffering from not having access to either the audio or video (because all the videos were taken down), isn't that a lose-lose for everybody? In worker protection at least the workers win from having more safety.
  - iso1210 7y ago
    That's the whole point of disability legislation across the world, including the ADA If I were to build a new shopping centre, but decided not to put in wheelchair access, would you argue that everyone will suffer from not having access to the shops, and thus it's a lose-lose for everyone?
    - threatofrain 7y ago
      Are wheelchair ramps an example of cutting-edge / frontier technology in this metaphor? Shouldn't society catch up a little before announcing that a technology becomes a standard? Why shouldn't an advanced AI Siri guide any blind or deaf person through any institution, store, or software experience? In this situation we are in fact saying that a large volume of user-submitted or professional porn should not be accessible because it might not be worth the money to transcribe. I don't think any stores are closing because a mall had to add wheelchair ramps. It's not like an inspiring technological undertaking.
michaelt 7y ago
Given the performance of Google's auto-captioning, I suspect developing worthwhile auto-captioning is pretty difficult; according to [1] the better Youtube channels use gig economy captioning at $1 per minute. Of course, there would be some scope for efficiency - no need to pay for captioning when the performers aren't speaking! [1] https://www.wired.com/story/problem-with-youtubes-terrible-closed-craptions/ https://www.wired.com/story/problem-with-youtubes-terrible-c...
- lowdose 7y ago
  While Youtube auto captioning has a superior performance compared to Google Translate output. In youtube translations there is much more language specific nuance. In many European languages a more formal word for the English word "you" exists, in German it is "Sie", French "Vous". Correct interpretations of these nuances are applied by Youtube, Google however translates "you" by default to the most formal option. So to me $1 dollar per minute sounds like an awesome deal because there is not much to adjust. Out of curiosity, can you link to such a gig company?
  - uncle_j 7y ago
    Youtube auto captioning doesn't work for British Accents especially anything Northern English, Scottish or Welsh. The same with any voice control, It doesn't work with my west country accent.
  - qwerty456127 7y ago
    > In many European languages a more formal word for the English word "you" exists, in German it is "Sie", French "Vous". Using formally-incorrect word for You is probably the least serious mistranslation possible. Everybody is going to get the meaning and, as long as they know that's a translation, nobody but a complete retard would complain about that seriously.
    - lowdose 7y ago
      I just mentioned in this respect Youtube performance is better than Google. I do think the formal nuance is outdated and should be deleted. We know from Korean pilots that after switching to English as default in the cockpit a significant decrease in crash rates was accomplished. This was 100% ascribed to the lack of formal nuance in English. I have a hunch a lot of European languages are handicapped by similar conditions.
extra88 7y ago
Automated captioning is not considered good enough to meet the standards. Pornhub should not be responsible for the lack of captions on videos uploaded by users.
- ghaff 7y ago
  What makes you say automated captioning isn’t good enough to meet the standards? Certainly CC on a lot of TV is pretty messy.
  - extra88 7y ago
    The word accuracy for auto-generated captions is highly variable, sometimes it's good enough, sometimes it's not. In addition, proper captions should identify speaker changes, significant non-verbal sound (e.g. [car honking]), and include punctuation, all things that most auto-generated caption services don't even attempt to do.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Again, what’s the standard for good enough? And I just ran an interview through an AI service. It caught speaker changes. And did punctuation. As well as a person, no? I use human transcription personally. But it seemed plenty adequate as minimal transcription.
      - extra88 7y ago
        What are you looking for, a percentage? I can't give you one. Think about what the point is; the point is to give hearing-impaired people the same experience as hearing people. If you quizzed some people who only had the audio and others who only read the captions, both groups should be able to answer questions at the same rate of success (caption readers may get more questions right, like naming a speaker). Some video captions could have numerous errors but of a type that the reader can easily tell what was meant. Other videos might have highly accurate captions but one essential word was missed, changing the whole meaning.
- 7y ago

iso1210 7y ago

Yes, just like if a company doesn't have the technology to keep its workers safe, it must stop putting them at risk

logicchains 7y ago
I don't see the similarity. If we go from blind people suffering from not having access to the audio transcription, to everybody suffering from not having access to either the audio or video (because all the videos were taken down), isn't that a lose-lose for everybody? In worker protection at least the workers win from having more safety.
- iso1210 7y ago
  That's the whole point of disability legislation across the world, including the ADA If I were to build a new shopping centre, but decided not to put in wheelchair access, would you argue that everyone will suffer from not having access to the shops, and thus it's a lose-lose for everyone?
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Are wheelchair ramps an example of cutting-edge / frontier technology in this metaphor? Shouldn't society catch up a little before announcing that a technology becomes a standard? Why shouldn't an advanced AI Siri guide any blind or deaf person through any institution, store, or software experience? In this situation we are in fact saying that a large volume of user-submitted or professional porn should not be accessible because it might not be worth the money to transcribe. I don't think any stores are closing because a mall had to add wheelchair ramps. It's not like an inspiring technological undertaking.

michaelt 7y ago

Given the performance of Google's auto-captioning, I suspect developing worthwhile auto-captioning is pretty difficult; according to [1] the better Youtube channels use gig economy captioning at $1 per minute. Of course, there would be some scope for efficiency - no need to pay for captioning when the performers aren't speaking! [1] https://www.wired.com/story/problem-with-youtubes-terrible-closed-craptions/ https://www.wired.com/story/problem-with-youtubes-terrible-c...

lowdose 7y ago
While Youtube auto captioning has a superior performance compared to Google Translate output. In youtube translations there is much more language specific nuance. In many European languages a more formal word for the English word "you" exists, in German it is "Sie", French "Vous". Correct interpretations of these nuances are applied by Youtube, Google however translates "you" by default to the most formal option. So to me $1 dollar per minute sounds like an awesome deal because there is not much to adjust. Out of curiosity, can you link to such a gig company?
- uncle_j 7y ago
  Youtube auto captioning doesn't work for British Accents especially anything Northern English, Scottish or Welsh. The same with any voice control, It doesn't work with my west country accent.
- qwerty456127 7y ago
  > In many European languages a more formal word for the English word "you" exists, in German it is "Sie", French "Vous". Using formally-incorrect word for You is probably the least serious mistranslation possible. Everybody is going to get the meaning and, as long as they know that's a translation, nobody but a complete retard would complain about that seriously.
  - lowdose 7y ago
    I just mentioned in this respect Youtube performance is better than Google. I do think the formal nuance is outdated and should be deleted. We know from Korean pilots that after switching to English as default in the cockpit a significant decrease in crash rates was accomplished. This was 100% ascribed to the lack of formal nuance in English. I have a hunch a lot of European languages are handicapped by similar conditions.

extra88 7y ago

Automated captioning is not considered good enough to meet the standards. Pornhub should not be responsible for the lack of captions on videos uploaded by users.

ghaff 7y ago
What makes you say automated captioning isn’t good enough to meet the standards? Certainly CC on a lot of TV is pretty messy.
- extra88 7y ago
  The word accuracy for auto-generated captions is highly variable, sometimes it's good enough, sometimes it's not. In addition, proper captions should identify speaker changes, significant non-verbal sound (e.g. [car honking]), and include punctuation, all things that most auto-generated caption services don't even attempt to do.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Again, what’s the standard for good enough? And I just ran an interview through an AI service. It caught speaker changes. And did punctuation. As well as a person, no? I use human transcription personally. But it seemed plenty adequate as minimal transcription.
    - extra88 7y ago
      What are you looking for, a percentage? I can't give you one. Think about what the point is; the point is to give hearing-impaired people the same experience as hearing people. If you quizzed some people who only had the audio and others who only read the captions, both groups should be able to answer questions at the same rate of success (caption readers may get more questions right, like naming a speaker). Some video captions could have numerous errors but of a type that the reader can easily tell what was meant. Other videos might have highly accurate captions but one essential word was missed, changing the whole meaning.
7y ago