7 ms·

Sticker on caption phone says that using the captions can be illegal. Why?

100 points by popcalc 2y ago

PopAlongKid 2y ago
The answer is in the comments at the posted link, and is exactly what I thought -- the funding that makes the service possible is designed to help people with hearing disabilities, they don't want to pay additional for others to use the service who don't need it.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  The service sounds awkward enough in practice that I'm not sure why anyone who didn't need it would want to use it.
  - orthoxerox 2y ago
    Pranksters obscuring their identity?
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41347176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41347176: > It's common for the relay agent to use their human intelligence to navigate a phone menu or get the right party on the line, to rephrase and clarify, since typing is so slow. I'd be tempted to use such a service simply for having someone else deal with phone menus and similar bullshit at the other end of the call.
nojs 2y ago
> The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. I would wager whisper is more accurate than said human, and definitely cheaper.
- retrac 2y ago
  Deaf here. In some contexts yes. In many, nope. Whisper can't talk to the other person. AI transcription systems on the phone are very awkward for both parties. Slow. Long pauses. Asking for clarification is a pain since the turn taking is so slow. The error rate is also way too high in some contexts (some heavily accented speakers for example).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Should’ve asked them for them to send you some of that supposed savings from using AI for taking their bet.
  - nojs 2y ago
    Interesting, thanks for sharing. I didn’t realise it was such an active task. Sounds like it’s much more complex than just transcription.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Transcription services are still horrible if you have (a) some kind of accent, (b) non-standard terms, or (c) noise. They can be better than nothing if you want some meeting notes and no one is taking them, but they're definitely not something you want to rely on for an important conversation. A human in a conversation of this type has the major advantage that, when they're not sure they've understood a word, they can ask the other party to repeat it.
      - vonunov 2y ago
        There are (still) actually good transcriptionists who will deliver a meticulous transcript with all your weirdly abbreviated jargon thoroughly researched (which can be a feat of truly impressive "detective" work at times), multiple speakers discerned, expert punctuation choices that fit the tone and meaning, etc. But it costs way more than most people can/will pay. I worked at a "real" (non-sweatshop) transcription outfit ca. 2012. Judging by my pay rate of $75 per audio hour at the time, I would guess that the really good operations these days must be charging close to $200 per audio hour. A quick google found one anecdatum corroborating this guesstimate: http://www.transprof.com/prices-faq http://www.transprof.com/prices-faq
retrac 2y ago
Deaf relay is done by transcriptionists. The end user relies on deaf relay in a way where automatic systems are not really an option - possibly in a life and death way if someone is calling their pharmacy or doctor or whatever. It's common for the relay agent to use their human intelligence to navigate a phone menu or get the right party on the line, to rephrase and clarify, since typing is so slow. That's actually a great benchmark for when AI will be ready. Can it replace humans for that task? At present absolutely not. (Trust me I've tried the various speech recognizers. Add a little noise or a mumbly person and it can degrade into uselessness. And the AI isn't going to interrupt someone immediately and then to repeat the last phrase. Anyway. You need to register for relay service with the provider. Using without would be unauthorized.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Have you tried Whisper large? I'm always amazed what it can pick up.
  - retrac 2y ago
    Yes. I use it every day and it's what I was benchmarking against mentally.
- shade 2y ago
  Speaking as someone who's deaf and uses these services a lot: for speech to text, the AI stuff is getting rather good. I'm not saying it's perfect for every situation, but I have a very high success rate using InnoCaption[0] for captioned phone calls, including to places like restaurants with a lot of noise going on in the background. InnoCaption does both live person and AI-based captioning; since they started offering the AI-based option I've left that on, and I've never had to switch to human operators to continue a conversation. That said - I'm not deaf from birth (lost my hearing in elementary school), so I voice for myself and that does simplify the process. I have used the old school text-only relay services and that was always such a miserable experience for me that I would crawl over broken glass to avoid making phone calls, especially going through phone trees. That's one area that relay operators still have a major advantage on. IIRC, Google's Pixel phones are supposed to be able to navigate phone trees for you, but since I use iOS I have no personal experience there. [0] https://www.innocaption.com/ https://www.innocaption.com/
zie 2y ago
The FCC foots the bill, via your phone bill(cell and land line). They don't want to foot the bill for every person on the planet, or even every person in the USA, just for those of us that are deaf/hard of hearing and need the service. If you need the service, it's free. If you don't need the service then you can pay for it yourself if you want it. Or do what most do these days and use AI and hope for the best. Yes the AI captioning stuff is improving, but they regularly break all the time. In my last call with AI captioning, the AI kept talking about lawyers. That was not a topic of discussion at all during the call. I was of course confused as all get out, and the hearing people had to type in what they actually meant.

100 points by popcalc 2y ago

The answer is in the comments at the posted link, and is exactly what I thought -- the funding that makes the service possible is designed to help people with hearing disabilities, they don't want to pay additional for others to use the service who don't need it.

SoftTalker 2y ago
The service sounds awkward enough in practice that I'm not sure why anyone who didn't need it would want to use it.
- orthoxerox 2y ago
  Pranksters obscuring their identity?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41347176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41347176: > It's common for the relay agent to use their human intelligence to navigate a phone menu or get the right party on the line, to rephrase and clarify, since typing is so slow. I'd be tempted to use such a service simply for having someone else deal with phone menus and similar bullshit at the other end of the call.

nojs 2y ago

> The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. I would wager whisper is more accurate than said human, and definitely cheaper.

retrac 2y ago
Deaf here. In some contexts yes. In many, nope. Whisper can't talk to the other person. AI transcription systems on the phone are very awkward for both parties. Slow. Long pauses. Asking for clarification is a pain since the turn taking is so slow. The error rate is also way too high in some contexts (some heavily accented speakers for example).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Should’ve asked them for them to send you some of that supposed savings from using AI for taking their bet.
- nojs 2y ago
  Interesting, thanks for sharing. I didn’t realise it was such an active task. Sounds like it’s much more complex than just transcription.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Transcription services are still horrible if you have (a) some kind of accent, (b) non-standard terms, or (c) noise. They can be better than nothing if you want some meeting notes and no one is taking them, but they're definitely not something you want to rely on for an important conversation. A human in a conversation of this type has the major advantage that, when they're not sure they've understood a word, they can ask the other party to repeat it.
    - vonunov 2y ago
      There are (still) actually good transcriptionists who will deliver a meticulous transcript with all your weirdly abbreviated jargon thoroughly researched (which can be a feat of truly impressive "detective" work at times), multiple speakers discerned, expert punctuation choices that fit the tone and meaning, etc. But it costs way more than most people can/will pay. I worked at a "real" (non-sweatshop) transcription outfit ca. 2012. Judging by my pay rate of $75 per audio hour at the time, I would guess that the really good operations these days must be charging close to $200 per audio hour. A quick google found one anecdatum corroborating this guesstimate: http://www.transprof.com/prices-faq http://www.transprof.com/prices-faq

retrac 2y ago

Deaf relay is done by transcriptionists. The end user relies on deaf relay in a way where automatic systems are not really an option - possibly in a life and death way if someone is calling their pharmacy or doctor or whatever. It's common for the relay agent to use their human intelligence to navigate a phone menu or get the right party on the line, to rephrase and clarify, since typing is so slow. That's actually a great benchmark for when AI will be ready. Can it replace humans for that task? At present absolutely not. (Trust me I've tried the various speech recognizers. Add a little noise or a mumbly person and it can degrade into uselessness. And the AI isn't going to interrupt someone immediately and then to repeat the last phrase. Anyway. You need to register for relay service with the provider. Using without would be unauthorized.

HPsquared 2y ago
Have you tried Whisper large? I'm always amazed what it can pick up.
- retrac 2y ago
  Yes. I use it every day and it's what I was benchmarking against mentally.
shade 2y ago
Speaking as someone who's deaf and uses these services a lot: for speech to text, the AI stuff is getting rather good. I'm not saying it's perfect for every situation, but I have a very high success rate using InnoCaption[0] for captioned phone calls, including to places like restaurants with a lot of noise going on in the background. InnoCaption does both live person and AI-based captioning; since they started offering the AI-based option I've left that on, and I've never had to switch to human operators to continue a conversation. That said - I'm not deaf from birth (lost my hearing in elementary school), so I voice for myself and that does simplify the process. I have used the old school text-only relay services and that was always such a miserable experience for me that I would crawl over broken glass to avoid making phone calls, especially going through phone trees. That's one area that relay operators still have a major advantage on. IIRC, Google's Pixel phones are supposed to be able to navigate phone trees for you, but since I use iOS I have no personal experience there. [0] https://www.innocaption.com/ https://www.innocaption.com/

zie 2y ago

The FCC foots the bill, via your phone bill(cell and land line). They don't want to foot the bill for every person on the planet, or even every person in the USA, just for those of us that are deaf/hard of hearing and need the service. If you need the service, it's free. If you don't need the service then you can pay for it yourself if you want it. Or do what most do these days and use AI and hope for the best. Yes the AI captioning stuff is improving, but they regularly break all the time. In my last call with AI captioning, the AI kept talking about lawyers. That was not a topic of discussion at all during the call. I was of course confused as all get out, and the hearing people had to type in what they actually meant.