3 ms·

>Running .includes() on the client does not imply that Google has any "understanding" of what was said. It only implies that they ran .includes() on the client.

by slg 2y ago

>Running .includes() on the client does not imply that Google has any "understanding" of what was said. It only implies that they ran .includes() on the client. includes() does not "understand" anything. Do you want to have a good faith conversation about this? Because going back to debating the meaning of "understanding" after I already said this was misleading is not a good way to have a conversation. >The thing I really don't understand is this: the fact that Google has closed captions at all implies they do an enormous more "analysis" than this minor feature could possibly require. If you understand how Google does CCs and what that means, this shouldn't have bothered you at all. Can we set up a baseline that there is a difference between content agnostic analysis and content aware analysis? Transcripts are content agnostic in that they can be produced without any comprehension of the words said. This feature is content aware in that it is looking for specific meaning in the words said. Do you not see any difference between these two?

FrequentLurker 2y ago
Google also censors all swear words in the auto transcriptions so is it content agnostic anymore?
- slg 2y ago
  That depends on how the transcription software is written. Are swear words filtered out or are they just never in the system's vocabulary in the first place? I assumed the latter, but fair enough point. It is possible my categorization needs more thought. Regardless, there is in my opinion a clear distinction in sophistication between a filter and something that triggers a timed action. And that was really what my original comment was about, this feature's elevated sophistication is a conscious reminder of Google's capabilities. Normally that is out of sight and out of mind which is probably better for Google.
johnfn 2y ago
> Do you want to have a good faith conversation about this? Because going back to debating the meaning of "understanding" after I already said this was misleading is not a good way to have a conversation. Call it "understanding", call it "content aware analysis". I guarantee that their closed captioning service has much more of that quality than this new feature does. > Can we set up a baseline that there is a difference between content agnostic analysis and content aware analysis? Transcripts are content agnostic in that they can be produced without any comprehension of the words said. This feature is content aware in that it is looking for specific meaning in the words said. Do you not see any difference between these two? Again, I don't see it. CCs are not content agnostic: they have to have semantic understanding of the words said in order to produce accurate results. How do you think CCs differentiate between the words "to", "too" and "two" without looking at the surrounding words and having some idea of contextual usage? How do you think CCs can tell between "there" and "they're" without understanding if the speaker is referring to a person or a location? This is only the tip of the iceberg as to how CCs actually work, and more "content aware analysis" will always lead to more accurate CCs.
- slg 2y ago
  >Again, I don't see it. CCs are not content agnostic: they have to have semantic understanding of the words said in order to produce accurate results. How do you think CCs differentiate between the words "to", "too" and "two" without looking at the surrounding words and having some idea of contextual usage? How do you think CCs can tell between "there" and "they're" without understanding if the speaker is referring to a person or a location? This is only the tip of the iceberg as to how CCs actually work, and more "content aware analysis" will always lead to more accurate CCs. Still can't get away from that "understanding" debate. You're also now equating an understanding of context with an understanding of meaning. An understanding of meaning isn't needed to differentiate between "to", "two", and "too" because they're all used differently in sentences. When the system encounters those, I don't think it goes to the definitions and tries to find which word makes the most meaningful sentence. Most times the specific homophone can be inferred based on things like part of speech and the part of speech can often be inferred from a sentence without knowing any meaning. For example, would the system be able to properly handle homophones that are grammatically similar? Could it consistently transcribe sentences like "I have Celiac disease and enjoy the taste of rose water, so I prefer flower to flour in my deserts." That is an easy sentence to understand for anyone who knows the meaning of those words, but there are no grammatical or structural indications on which flower/flour to use. But either way, that is getting way too deep in the weeds compared to where my point started. This feature calls attention to an analysis of meaning because the user sees the software reacting to the meaning of the content of the video. A transcript does not call attention to an analysis of meaning because the behavior of the software does not change based on the content of the video.
  - johnfn 2y ago
    > But either way, that is getting way too deep in the weeds compared to where my point started. Your first comment - the one that started all this - was, as far as I can understand, arguing that this feature indicated that Google had the capabilities to do more advanced - understanding? processing? meaning analysis? - than it had done in the past. If I keep coming back to that, well, it's because it appears to be your main point. If it's not, please correct me. > Most times the specific homophone can be inferred based on things like part of speech and the part of speech can often be inferred from a sentence without knowing any meaning. This is not true. I don't think I have enough more responses on HN to fully explain why homophones can not be inferred without understanding meaning, but I encourage you to go and read about how transcription works! > For example, would the system be able to properly handle homophones that are grammatically similar? I mean, this is easy enough for you to check. Here's some videos about flour / flower - notice how the CCs correctly determine if the word is flour or flower with almost 100% accuracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8vLjPctrcU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8vLjPctrcU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdaRvErv2Kc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdaRvErv2Kc > This feature calls attention to an analysis of meaning because the user sees the software reacting to the meaning of the content of the video. Are you saying you specifically think that YT is analyzing meaning from this feature, or just some generic user? I think you are smart enough to know that it's not true, but perhaps my mom might not understand that CCs require infinitely more processing power and this feature is just a drop in the bucket. (If you really still don't think it's true, definitely go read more about how CCs are made!)

by slg 2y ago

FrequentLurker 2y ago

Google also censors all swear words in the auto transcriptions so is it content agnostic anymore?

slg 2y ago
That depends on how the transcription software is written. Are swear words filtered out or are they just never in the system's vocabulary in the first place? I assumed the latter, but fair enough point. It is possible my categorization needs more thought. Regardless, there is in my opinion a clear distinction in sophistication between a filter and something that triggers a timed action. And that was really what my original comment was about, this feature's elevated sophistication is a conscious reminder of Google's capabilities. Normally that is out of sight and out of mind which is probably better for Google.

johnfn 2y ago

> Do you want to have a good faith conversation about this? Because going back to debating the meaning of "understanding" after I already said this was misleading is not a good way to have a conversation. Call it "understanding", call it "content aware analysis". I guarantee that their closed captioning service has much more of that quality than this new feature does. > Can we set up a baseline that there is a difference between content agnostic analysis and content aware analysis? Transcripts are content agnostic in that they can be produced without any comprehension of the words said. This feature is content aware in that it is looking for specific meaning in the words said. Do you not see any difference between these two? Again, I don't see it. CCs are not content agnostic: they have to have semantic understanding of the words said in order to produce accurate results. How do you think CCs differentiate between the words "to", "too" and "two" without looking at the surrounding words and having some idea of contextual usage? How do you think CCs can tell between "there" and "they're" without understanding if the speaker is referring to a person or a location? This is only the tip of the iceberg as to how CCs actually work, and more "content aware analysis" will always lead to more accurate CCs.

slg 2y ago
>Again, I don't see it. CCs are not content agnostic: they have to have semantic understanding of the words said in order to produce accurate results. How do you think CCs differentiate between the words "to", "too" and "two" without looking at the surrounding words and having some idea of contextual usage? How do you think CCs can tell between "there" and "they're" without understanding if the speaker is referring to a person or a location? This is only the tip of the iceberg as to how CCs actually work, and more "content aware analysis" will always lead to more accurate CCs. Still can't get away from that "understanding" debate. You're also now equating an understanding of context with an understanding of meaning. An understanding of meaning isn't needed to differentiate between "to", "two", and "too" because they're all used differently in sentences. When the system encounters those, I don't think it goes to the definitions and tries to find which word makes the most meaningful sentence. Most times the specific homophone can be inferred based on things like part of speech and the part of speech can often be inferred from a sentence without knowing any meaning. For example, would the system be able to properly handle homophones that are grammatically similar? Could it consistently transcribe sentences like "I have Celiac disease and enjoy the taste of rose water, so I prefer flower to flour in my deserts." That is an easy sentence to understand for anyone who knows the meaning of those words, but there are no grammatical or structural indications on which flower/flour to use. But either way, that is getting way too deep in the weeds compared to where my point started. This feature calls attention to an analysis of meaning because the user sees the software reacting to the meaning of the content of the video. A transcript does not call attention to an analysis of meaning because the behavior of the software does not change based on the content of the video.
- johnfn 2y ago
  > But either way, that is getting way too deep in the weeds compared to where my point started. Your first comment - the one that started all this - was, as far as I can understand, arguing that this feature indicated that Google had the capabilities to do more advanced - understanding? processing? meaning analysis? - than it had done in the past. If I keep coming back to that, well, it's because it appears to be your main point. If it's not, please correct me. > Most times the specific homophone can be inferred based on things like part of speech and the part of speech can often be inferred from a sentence without knowing any meaning. This is not true. I don't think I have enough more responses on HN to fully explain why homophones can not be inferred without understanding meaning, but I encourage you to go and read about how transcription works! > For example, would the system be able to properly handle homophones that are grammatically similar? I mean, this is easy enough for you to check. Here's some videos about flour / flower - notice how the CCs correctly determine if the word is flour or flower with almost 100% accuracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8vLjPctrcU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8vLjPctrcU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdaRvErv2Kc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdaRvErv2Kc > This feature calls attention to an analysis of meaning because the user sees the software reacting to the meaning of the content of the video. Are you saying you specifically think that YT is analyzing meaning from this feature, or just some generic user? I think you are smart enough to know that it's not true, but perhaps my mom might not understand that CCs require infinitely more processing power and this feature is just a drop in the bucket. (If you really still don't think it's true, definitely go read more about how CCs are made!)