4 ms·
According to what I'm reading, speech is only about 180 WPM and steno can be 240-300 WPM. Speech-to-text will actually be less efficient than steno. And for m
by Vivtek 15y ago
According to what I'm reading, speech is only about 180 WPM and steno can be 240-300 WPM. Speech-to-text will actually be less efficient than steno. And for me, typing 1.25 million words of English per year (in technical translation, mostly from German) - if I tried using speech-to-text my larynx would be burnt out in a month. No way. I've heard some people get mileage out of it, but not me. I'm learning me some steno, starting today.
- fragsworth 15y agoI can't tell if you're joking or not. The point of speech-to-text is not necessarily efficiency, it's also for subtitling and/or recording normal speech (i.e. phone conversations, or TV screens in public areas)
- Vivtek 15y agoAh. Yeah, for that it's obviously going to be the bee's knees except for the whole AI-completeness issue. But for me it's useless; I look at German text and type English text, so the issue really is throughput. (Mostly.) So no, not joking at all. Just talking about a different application.