5 ms·

Here’s what appears to be an independent review of Spritz: https://www.tsw.it/wp-content/uploads/Rapid-serial-visual-presentation-in-reading-The-case-of-Spritz

Here’s what appears to be an independent review of Spritz: https://www.tsw.it/wp-content/uploads/Rapid-serial-visual-presentation-in-reading-The-case-of-Spritz-1.pdf https://www.tsw.it/wp-content/uploads/Rapid-serial-visual-pr... One of the issues with tests like these is that the companies sponsor the research and they are one-off vs long exposure studies; that is as with most interfaces with high-throughput, takes time for the mind to adjust. My guess that given human speech appears to have a universal transmission rate of around 39-bits per second, that on average that’s going to be the actual performance target: https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594 https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594

ASalazarMX 4y ago
> human speech appears to have a universal transmission rate of around 39-bits per second This is unacceptable, we need a modern language that packs information tighter!
- danudey 4y ago
  We need to start in schools, teaching our children to speak in zstd. It could more than triple their throughput!
- atulvi 4y ago
  Not a language, but a font: https://dotsies.org/ https://dotsies.org/ Discussed in HN multiple times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18703805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18703805
- carlob 4y ago
  I know you're probably joking, but for those out of the loop, the result your parent was referring to is that more verbose languages have faster speakers and the two effects compensate one another pretty well. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594
- Terr_ 4y ago
  I think this is in jest, but to answer seriously: No, I think that's actually backwards, trying to make a language more "packed" will harm information flow. Evidence suggests the real limit is how quickly human brains can take ideas/qualia, convert them into abstractions, and encode the abstractions into language. This is because (A) very different languages still exhibit similar limits and (B) those limits appear to be governed by the sending-side. People can comprehend spoken words at a higher rate than they can spontaneously emit them. So trying to make the language more "compact" would likely just waste precious brain-cycles on the compression step, which isn't actually necessary when your mouth already supports talking faster. Technology analogy: Two computers are collaboratively solving a problem with back-and-forth messages. The network connection is actually very good, however the bottleneck is the CPU in each computer. Will the problem be solved faster if you change the transmission style from plaintext to gzipped?
  - O__________O 4y ago
    >> “People can comprehend spoken words at a higher rate than they can spontaneously emit them.” If you have any links to research supporting this, I would be interested.
    - Terr_ 4y ago
      A Large Inclusive Study of Human Listening Rates [1] focused on finding optimal generated-speech rates for screen-reader software: > The mean Listening Rate was 56.8, which corresponds to 309 WPM. Given that people typically speak at a rate of 120-180 WPM, these results suggest that many people, if not most, can understand speech signifcantly [sic] faster than today’s conversational agents with typical human speaking rates. While there was some difference between the visually-impaired and normal-vision respondents, I don't think it's enough to matter to the thesis of my post: > [...] The mean Listening Rate for visually impaired participants was 60.6 (334 WPM) while for sighted participants it was 55.1 (297 WPM). 1: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3173574.3174018 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3173574.3174018
      - O__________O 4y ago
- dev_tty01 4y ago
  No, latin is the only language we'll ever need! It is much closer to the fundamental truth, unlike these modern languages that make unnecessary abstractions of what is really going on at the low level.
- kbelder 4y ago
  I wonder if the bottleneck is in speaking or listening.
jms 4y ago
Blind people who use screen readers usually turn up the speed to something unintelligible to the rest of us. Maybe reading a computer screen is a simpler task than talking person to person, but it's an interesting datapoint!
- spartanatreyu 4y ago
  Not blind, but I often watch youtube videos from 2x - 4x speed, only going below 2x to review complicated information (pausing a tutorial to read the text/code/image on the screen) or if the timing of information is part of the information (music, comedic timing, etc...)
- smegger001 4y ago
  I am definitely not blind. But i listen at high speed to audio books and podcast all day at work, I average at around 2.5x/2.8x speed (lower for certain narrators and can get up to 3x + speeds if i am not doing something that requires much of the language processing part of my brain or anything mentally taxing) i could drive or play a non-text/plot heavy video game but not talk or problem solve.
- O__________O 4y ago
  While I agree both the blind and others, including myself, listen to screen readers and audio at a higher rate, that’s not actually research that’s reviewable and shareable. Speaking for myself, 100% sure the noise-to-signal ratio increases when I do, but if needed, I just go back X-seconds in time to relisten to prior audio. I for sure never literally test my comprehension systematically when doing so relative to when I am not. The speakers, vocabulary, topic familiarity, etc — also make a huge difference; aka prior familiarity in general with the input. On the flip side, I provided research on transmission rates, which to me seems reasonable, but another user shared research on reception rates, which to me is unreasonable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160095 To me, I am interested in notable, reviewable progress in understanding the topic — not chatting about it around an internet campfire.

ASalazarMX 4y ago

> human speech appears to have a universal transmission rate of around 39-bits per second This is unacceptable, we need a modern language that packs information tighter!

danudey 4y ago
We need to start in schools, teaching our children to speak in zstd. It could more than triple their throughput!
atulvi 4y ago
Not a language, but a font: https://dotsies.org/ https://dotsies.org/ Discussed in HN multiple times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18703805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18703805
carlob 4y ago
I know you're probably joking, but for those out of the loop, the result your parent was referring to is that more verbose languages have faster speakers and the two effects compensate one another pretty well. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594
Terr_ 4y ago
I think this is in jest, but to answer seriously: No, I think that's actually backwards, trying to make a language more "packed" will harm information flow. Evidence suggests the real limit is how quickly human brains can take ideas/qualia, convert them into abstractions, and encode the abstractions into language. This is because (A) very different languages still exhibit similar limits and (B) those limits appear to be governed by the sending-side. People can comprehend spoken words at a higher rate than they can spontaneously emit them. So trying to make the language more "compact" would likely just waste precious brain-cycles on the compression step, which isn't actually necessary when your mouth already supports talking faster. Technology analogy: Two computers are collaboratively solving a problem with back-and-forth messages. The network connection is actually very good, however the bottleneck is the CPU in each computer. Will the problem be solved faster if you change the transmission style from plaintext to gzipped?
- O__________O 4y ago
  >> “People can comprehend spoken words at a higher rate than they can spontaneously emit them.” If you have any links to research supporting this, I would be interested.
  - Terr_ 4y ago
    A Large Inclusive Study of Human Listening Rates [1] focused on finding optimal generated-speech rates for screen-reader software: > The mean Listening Rate was 56.8, which corresponds to 309 WPM. Given that people typically speak at a rate of 120-180 WPM, these results suggest that many people, if not most, can understand speech signifcantly [sic] faster than today’s conversational agents with typical human speaking rates. While there was some difference between the visually-impaired and normal-vision respondents, I don't think it's enough to matter to the thesis of my post: > [...] The mean Listening Rate for visually impaired participants was 60.6 (334 WPM) while for sighted participants it was 55.1 (297 WPM). 1: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3173574.3174018 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3173574.3174018
    - O__________O 4y ago
dev_tty01 4y ago
No, latin is the only language we'll ever need! It is much closer to the fundamental truth, unlike these modern languages that make unnecessary abstractions of what is really going on at the low level.
kbelder 4y ago
I wonder if the bottleneck is in speaking or listening.

jms 4y ago

Blind people who use screen readers usually turn up the speed to something unintelligible to the rest of us. Maybe reading a computer screen is a simpler task than talking person to person, but it's an interesting datapoint!

spartanatreyu 4y ago
Not blind, but I often watch youtube videos from 2x - 4x speed, only going below 2x to review complicated information (pausing a tutorial to read the text/code/image on the screen) or if the timing of information is part of the information (music, comedic timing, etc...)
smegger001 4y ago
I am definitely not blind. But i listen at high speed to audio books and podcast all day at work, I average at around 2.5x/2.8x speed (lower for certain narrators and can get up to 3x + speeds if i am not doing something that requires much of the language processing part of my brain or anything mentally taxing) i could drive or play a non-text/plot heavy video game but not talk or problem solve.
O__________O 4y ago
While I agree both the blind and others, including myself, listen to screen readers and audio at a higher rate, that’s not actually research that’s reviewable and shareable. Speaking for myself, 100% sure the noise-to-signal ratio increases when I do, but if needed, I just go back X-seconds in time to relisten to prior audio. I for sure never literally test my comprehension systematically when doing so relative to when I am not. The speakers, vocabulary, topic familiarity, etc — also make a huge difference; aka prior familiarity in general with the input. On the flip side, I provided research on transmission rates, which to me seems reasonable, but another user shared research on reception rates, which to me is unreasonable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160095 To me, I am interested in notable, reviewable progress in understanding the topic — not chatting about it around an internet campfire.