5 ms·
Oh wow, I thought humans are like 0.1% error rate, if they are native speakers and aware of the subject being discussed.
by XCSme 9mo ago
Oh wow, I thought humans are like 0.1% error rate, if they are native speakers and aware of the subject being discussed.
- zipy124 9mo agoI was skepitcal upon hearing the figure but various sources do indeed back it up and [0] is a pretty interesting paper (old but still relevant human transcibers haven't changed in accuracy). [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/paper-revised2.pdf https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
- XCSme 9mo agoI think it's actually hard to verify how correct a transcription is, at scale. Curious where those error rate numbers come from, because they should test it on people actually doing their job.
- rhdunn 9mo agoIt can depend a lot on different factors like: - familiarity with the accent and/or speaker; - speed and style/cadence of the speech; - any other audio that is happening that can muffle or distort the audio; - etc. It can also take multiple passes to get a decent transcription.
- qingcharles 9mo agoYou missed a giant factor: domain knowledge. Transcribing something outside of your knowledge realm is very hard. I posted above about transcribing the commentary of a motorbike race where the commentators only used the slang names of the riders.
- Nimitz14 9mo agoMost of these errors will not be meaningful. Real speech is full of ambiguities. 3% is low