Next next post from IBM: Tay turned out to be good for something after all. It turns out that project meetings are a lot more fun when no one is talking and 8 people are channeling an angry, racist, 19-year-old girl.
This is the high tech equivalent of drawing eyeballs on your eyelids so you can go to sleep during a meeting.
I do kind of like the idea of dialing into a meeting but saying that you'll be AFK and then just reading the transcript afterward. It seems like it could be a real time saver in those cases where you're not really participating currently but want to keep up with the project.
> It seems like it could be a real time saver in those cases where you're not really participating currently but want to keep up with the project.
Yep, very. Just imagine!
"So, guys, the new feature we onion maybe needs to beat the liver by the twenty and. Josh, you we'll get the baby to Reese pony ability customer. Let me know if super busy ved communication."
That's whst I was thinking. Usually something important in a stream of filler at the meeting. Watch it be misinterpreted by the software while the filler is intact haha. Even worse, using machine learning that optimizes for common case might actually make it worse given signal to noise ratio.
> Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. (Notes: (1) Illinois' two-party consent statute was held unconstitutional in 2014; (2) Hawai'i is in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place; (3) Massachusetts bans "secret" recordings rather than requiring explicit consent from all parties.). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.
I'd imagine this only applies if you keep the recording. What about hearing impaired people who might use this for accessibility purposes? One would only need to keep it for the following fractions of a second it takes to turn it into text. At that point, it turns into the legal equivalent of notes you write while on a phone call.
These laws are likely invalid. Communications networks already operate on a "record and transmit" basis. As you pointed out, the real question posed by these laws is "when must a recording be destroyed"?
At the level of your personal rights, however, you have an absolute right to observe, record, copy, and display anything you are able. Personally, I feel the correct response to anyone who tells you that you cannot archive what you see and hear is laughter, followed by an explanation of their rights.
My guess would be no, as speech-to-text is no different than having someone transcribe the conversation.
If the law were as technical as you describe then VoIP calls themselves would be against the law since a person's voice is recorded, transmitted, and momentarily stored.
Where I put "doing work for" I should have said "working for". It's on my work history on my website, but I probably shouldn't say anything beyond what is listed there (click the box for a summary).
What I would like to have is a condensed summary of the whole transcript. I believe most meetings could be summed up in a few short sentences. Think about the time saved!
Nowadays I'm watching alot of tutorials on youtube. What I like to do is downloading all that stuff with youtube-dlg (https://github.com/MrS0m30n3/youtube-dl-gui) and watch them with increased speed on vlc (factor 1.5 to 2.0 works reasonably well). It always feels very satisfying to think about the time saved. Like that brain-learning interface in Matrix.
Would love to have something like this for everything. meetings, school, conferences, news, etc..
> I do run the risk of losing credibility as to whether I'm actually listening in meetings now, but I'm not too concerned about that. I made this as a joke, and my coworkers know that
I think this answer--that Newlan's employer, Splunk, is in on the joke--is only a partial reason that Splunk tolerates Newlan writing and publishing "Say What?".
From the "Readme.md":
> Installation (OS X)
> 1. Sign up for, install, and run Splunk Enterprise
> ◦ This has to be enterprise; the HTTP Event Collector feature used here doesn't exist in light
Kudos, to Splunk for having the guts to "allow" Newlan to unleash "Say What?" on conference calls everywhere, and cheers to Newlan for dreaming it up.
This is genius. How long before instead of dialing into conference calls, we just send our bots and have bot to bot con-calls? Could this be the killer Twilio app?
...by merging it with a bot that quotes a random sentence from any comment with "killer" and "app" in it, asks for free work from humans by saying, "How so?" (AKA nerd sniping) and submitting the results to a startup incubator automatically.
I tried this a few weeks ago with Watson for that purpose (being able phase out during conference calls); complete gibberish came out on all my trials (about 40 conference calls) with 2,3,4,5 and 8 people, all in English. All come out complete garbage. You can't even guess what we are talking about reading the entire transcripts.
Not sure if this is not just the same thing... If it is, I would love to hear your experiences.
Edit: shame I didn't publish it :)
Edit2: I had one call for which I have a colleague speaking who speaks 'the Queen's English' and same result...
wouldn't that just mean that Watson sucks at text to speech?
also since that's probably the case for most tts services (at least in my experience)
why not run the audio through all the tts engines you can find and compare results. keep what has the highest matches and see if you can get the other words using phonetics engines.
for words that are specific to your company train a tts engine on those words and weight your local engine higher than other services.
you can get a pretty decent translation back, but who would be so lazy as to work that hard..... ;)
A large part of the issue is that if you are dealing with phone meetings, audio is severely compressed, and not very similar to the training data that Watson has been taught with. Google Voice might be able to do a better transcription, because they have much more data from phone messages to work with, but eventually it comes down to the fact that voices over a phone line are a lot harder to understand without context processing than voices recorded with a decent microphone.
It's how they've structured their audio for ASR. When you have a single track for all channels, the signals get garbled and it's hard to segment each out.
The key is using a conference call system which captures each track separately. Polycom, Tropo, and others do it. Then when you run ASR, you can feed in each channel and have a "unified" transcript.
I had this idea once and routed my laptop's output audio into its own microphone and then opened a Google text document and turned dictation on. It didn't work too well, because of: noise/signal ratio and the strong Indian accent of the speaker. With normal paced pronunciation and clean audio it works definitely better.
Kind of related, I did something similar (as in purpose) for slack [1]. It can be used to set yourself away or... well, it can respond a canned message as you. It also disables the annoying auto-away after 30min. You can even close slack and let it send you system notifications for incoming mentions. Heck, you could even run it on a server and pretend to be you whilst you sip mojitos on a beach.
I wonder if I can hire an intern or something to just transcribe all conference calls? Actually having a record of what was said would be lovely - too often audio is just too ephemeral and goes poof, with nobody remembering what was agreed upon.
It's got to be worth $10-15/hour in wasted time and recapping.
I think a note taker taking live notes that everyone can see, and perhaps edit, is a great way to record meetings. As a bonus, you even have something tangible to show the time you put in!
I tend to live tweet stuff into slack, makes it useful to dump into other tools or get input from others who arent there, eliminates a lot of status update / meeting recaps
I'm working on this at the moment, in a way that also uses the edited transcripts to train our ASR system to perform better for later sessions. The difficult part is the speaker diarization, however. Multiple people talking at once requires some intricate signal processing to sort out.
That adds a ton of complexity and opportunity for embarrassing bugs/flaws while gaining only slight convenience. As a product manager I wouldn't touch that.
It may not be the simplest feature to implement but I do think we have enough tech now to build a pretty solid feature around this.
Also, I wouldn't call it merely a slight convenience when multiple times a day you see the pattern repeat of there being a long pause after you ask someone a question, followed by "sorry, I was on mute."
Voice-chat used for gaming has had unmute on speech for more than a decade. That solves the problem of background humming, while getting all the voice tgrough.
Obviously there is the potential for certain forms of abuse here, but it could be really useful for creating a record of what was said and what promises were made on the call.
"Oh, you thought it was due on Monday? Nope, transcript says you promised it by close of business Friday."
Pretty amazing. Makes me wonder what the current state of the art in general purpose voice recognition is.
I recently wondered if there is a a video-chat app that uses voice recognition for live subtitles? Would be awesome for talking to people who don't have perfect hearing. Could this be hacked together in a similar way?
I'm working on it, making more of a general purpose API for speech recognition to plug in during Hangouts calls, twitch streams, or any pre-recorded media. Called Spreza
* I should clarify as well, for your first question. State of the art is generally either IBM's 2016 English Conversational Telephone Speech Recognition System [0], or Baidu's DeepSpeech2 [1]. IBM's is a little more complex, but I'd actually argue Baidu is more promising due to the robust ability to learn new languages.
76 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadPretty fun hack though.
I do kind of like the idea of dialing into a meeting but saying that you'll be AFK and then just reading the transcript afterward. It seems like it could be a real time saver in those cases where you're not really participating currently but want to keep up with the project.
Yep, very. Just imagine!
"So, guys, the new feature we onion maybe needs to beat the liver by the twenty and. Josh, you we'll get the baby to Reese pony ability customer. Let me know if super busy ved communication."
http://thecooperreview.com/10-tricks-appear-smart-meetings/
>Yep
The only reasonable answer to this question
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co...
> Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. (Notes: (1) Illinois' two-party consent statute was held unconstitutional in 2014; (2) Hawai'i is in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place; (3) Massachusetts bans "secret" recordings rather than requiring explicit consent from all parties.). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.
That said, IANAL.
At the level of your personal rights, however, you have an absolute right to observe, record, copy, and display anything you are able. Personally, I feel the correct response to anyone who tells you that you cannot archive what you see and hear is laughter, followed by an explanation of their rights.
The legal question is whether text-to-speech qualifies as a "recording" when the audio itself is not stored.
If the law were as technical as you describe then VoIP calls themselves would be against the law since a person's voice is recorded, transmitted, and momentarily stored.
Nowadays I'm watching alot of tutorials on youtube. What I like to do is downloading all that stuff with youtube-dlg (https://github.com/MrS0m30n3/youtube-dl-gui) and watch them with increased speed on vlc (factor 1.5 to 2.0 works reasonably well). It always feels very satisfying to think about the time saved. Like that brain-learning interface in Matrix.
Would love to have something like this for everything. meetings, school, conferences, news, etc..
> I do run the risk of losing credibility as to whether I'm actually listening in meetings now, but I'm not too concerned about that. I made this as a joke, and my coworkers know that
http://www.businessinsider.com/josh-newlan-creates-say-what-...
From the "Readme.md":
> Installation (OS X)
> 1. Sign up for, install, and run Splunk Enterprise
> ◦ This has to be enterprise; the HTTP Event Collector feature used here doesn't exist in light
Kudos, to Splunk for having the guts to "allow" Newlan to unleash "Say What?" on conference calls everywhere, and cheers to Newlan for dreaming it up.
EDIT: formatting, readability, punctuation.
My initial thought was, "who would choose Splunk for the datastore for anything?"
This now makes sense.
edit: by "anything", I mean "anything that isn't logs/security event data"
If it highlights the complete waste of time that almost all conference calls are, it would be a service to mankind.
Kudos, sir. Kudos.
"Sorry, I didn't realize my mic was on mute there."
"No problem Josh, we can hear you now just fine."
"Sorry, I didn't realize my mic was on mute there."
"... um, Josh?"
"Sorry, I didn't realize my mic was on mute there."
On fb we already have bots posting articles and people asking for a bot to deal with the deluge of articles. Bots posting for screener bots.
how so ?
Not sure if this is not just the same thing... If it is, I would love to hear your experiences.
Edit: shame I didn't publish it :) Edit2: I had one call for which I have a colleague speaking who speaks 'the Queen's English' and same result...
why not run the audio through all the tts engines you can find and compare results. keep what has the highest matches and see if you can get the other words using phonetics engines.
for words that are specific to your company train a tts engine on those words and weight your local engine higher than other services.
you can get a pretty decent translation back, but who would be so lazy as to work that hard..... ;)
The key is using a conference call system which captures each track separately. Polycom, Tropo, and others do it. Then when you run ASR, you can feed in each channel and have a "unified" transcript.
And yes, I've worked on this problem at my last startup where we did all of that and took things further by adding search. Here's a demo: http://clarify.io/try-it-now/?id=20f5e8c4f1ef4f8c91160839b48...
[1]: https://github.com/eskerda/slack-keep-presence
It's got to be worth $10-15/hour in wasted time and recapping.
Also, I wouldn't call it merely a slight convenience when multiple times a day you see the pattern repeat of there being a long pause after you ask someone a question, followed by "sorry, I was on mute."
"Oh, you thought it was due on Monday? Nope, transcript says you promised it by close of business Friday."
It's a funny gimmick, for entertainment and to get visibility for the author's employer's name.
I recently wondered if there is a a video-chat app that uses voice recognition for live subtitles? Would be awesome for talking to people who don't have perfect hearing. Could this be hacked together in a similar way?
0: arxiv.org/abs/1604.08242 1: arxiv.org/abs/1512.02595