37 ms·
The first two audio clips in the article are the same text with different intentionality, so they have the 'intent' setting figured out already.
by mootzville 5y ago
The first two audio clips in the article are the same text with different intentionality, so they have the 'intent' setting figured out already.
- shalmanese 5y agoIntent is not a binary choice, it's an infinite gradation. This isn't about just text-to-voice AI but about how we build AI systems in general. The AI we have now is good for a) problems with an unambiguously correct answer that AIs can perform better than humans (like camera tracking a scene). b) problems where the deficiencies of AI performance are made up for by other characteristics (like machine translation which is often bad but at least its instant) Where we have no real advances in AI are problems in which there are multiple valid answers and how to coach and give feedback to an AI to improve their answer more in accordance to your preferences. People who make pollyannaish predictions about AI takeover fail to understand this distinction. eg: It's relatively easy to make an AI that can spit out a bunch of brand new recipes. But we don't know how to right now take an 85% good recipe that an AI generates, make it, taste it and then give AI feedback that would allow it to improve that recipe. Like, we don't even know the UI for that. About the best UI we have for it right now is to have the AI show you two versions side by side and you pick the better one until it gradient descents into what you want but that's unbelievably clunky for most tasks. Where humans excel is at the interface and the interface makes up a surprisingly large part of many tasks, especially ones that white collar workers mistakenly regard as "menial".