4 ms·
They still require the utterly ridiculous "Ok, Google" activation though. I know its irrational, but I really don't want to have to use phrases I would never us
by jon-wood 12y ago
They still require the utterly ridiculous "Ok, Google" activation though. I know its irrational, but I really don't want to have to use phrases I would never use in day to day life to communicate with my computer.
- jeffgreco 12y agoIsn't that the whole point of an obscure catchword? To avoid the computer intercepting normal conversation?
- smacktoward 12y agoSure, but that's just an artifact of the crude capabilities of current speech recognition. A sufficiently advanced speech recognition engine wouldn't need you to insert a stopword to know that you're talking to it. It would just... know.
- sejje 12y agoThat's a bit strange. I don't always know whether people are talking to me, and I wouldn't say my speech recognition is crude. Why don't they just allow for naming a device? You'd use names in your everyday conversation.
- untog 12y agoSometimes I, as a human being, don't know if someone is talking to me unless they preface their statement with my name. How are computers supposed to be any better?
- jodrellblank 12y agoLong term, because it can monitor way more world state and be designed with as much processing power as necessary; you have one brain and don't want to spend 100% of your time working out if someone is talking to you.
- drdaeman 12y agoJust wonder whenever someone had experimented with use of constructed or just uncommon languages for such purposes. Such approach is certainly not consumer-friendly, but fun nonetheless. Say, a geeky enough person could use Esperanto or Lojban to control always-listening home automation without worrying too much it'll accidentally get unintended commands. Or, maybe, not a general purpose conlang, but a specially constructed one tailored just to quickly express the necessary concepts to machine.