Slashdot Mirror


SpinVox "Recognition" Is Often Expensive Human Transcription

An anonymous reader writes "SpinVox offers to convert voice messages to text using a system called D2 or 'the Brain.' According to BBC News, said 'Brain' is often of the old-fashioned kind: SpinVox is sending private voice messages to South Africa, the Philippines, and maybe Egypt to be typed by people in a call centre, despite being registered as keeping all private data inside Europe and claiming that the text is somehow anonymised. Insiders say they transcribed 'love messages, secret messages' and everything else from beginning to end, and the company is being bled dry by the cost: SpinVox has been locked out of one of their data centers over a payment dispute. SpinVox refuses to comment further on details — but according to their web page, they're 'enabling the Speech 3.0, Voice 3.0, and Business 3.0 markets,' whatever that means."

226 comments

  1. O(human) by NovaX81 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Best algorithm, ever.

    1. Re:O(human) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Vista's file copy algorithm runs in O(human): scribe-like in its patience...

    2. Re:O(human) by haifastudent · · Score: 1

      Best algorithm, ever.

      How about Dragon Naturally Speaking? It doesn't run on Ubuntu so I haven't tried it, but their video sure is convincing:
      http://www.nuance.com/talk/

      I will probably start contributing to this FOSS voice-recognition implementation:
      http://www.voxforge.org/

      --
      Thank for reading to the sig. You may stop reading now. It is safe. There is no more content. Why are you still reading?
    3. Re:O(human) by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      I haven't tried it, but their video sure is convincing

      *facepalm*

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. But it's not crazy by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It may be they lied about keeping user supplied data in house, and they may have implied that they used advanced technological means to do the transcription, but if their service does what it says I can't blame them for using human labour to do the transcription. Human brains remain the only high performance computer manufactured with unskilled labour.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    1. Re:But it's not crazy by MrMista_B · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What?

      No.

      Their service says that they keep user supplied data in house. They do not.
      Their service says that they use advanced technological means to do the transcription. They do not.

      How on earth do you take that to mean 'their service does what it says'?

      You are wrong.

    2. Re:But it's not crazy by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

      But it also knows what it doesn't know and is able to call on human experts for assistance.

      http://www.spinvox.com/how_it_works.html

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:But it's not crazy by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think you misunderstood my post. Yes they lied; but I cannot blame them for using human brains as the speech-to-tech method as it's still probably the best way to do it.

      Regardless of their lying about it, the actual 'method' itself is technically sound.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    4. Re:But it's not crazy by intx13 · · Score: 1

      It may be they lied about keeping user supplied data in house, and they may have implied that they used advanced technological means to do the transcription, but if their service does what it says I can't blame them for using human labour to do the transcription.

      I don't know... an unethical service, an unscrupulous company, a management with the lack of business sense to realize this is a public relations disaster, a fiscally untenable platform, and (possibly) opens them up to legal action... I'd call that crazy.

      Sure, the technology works, but the whole idea is preposterous. Who transcribes the workers' voice mail? Or is voice mail transcription reserved for the upper class? Surely it's not such an elite service to warrant that treatment, which indicates that something went wrong in the management's thinking.

    5. Re:But it's not crazy by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>>Human brains remain the only high performance computer manufactured with unskilled labour.

      I object! It takes a lot of skill to satisfy today's demanding women. And what happens if you lack that skill? They'll just jump ship to some other guy's bed. Unskilled labor indeed. It takes a lot of skill to convince Miss Prissy to let her guard down, bribe her with a 50,000 dollar wedding, remove the diaphragm, and let you impregnate her.

      No I'm not bitter.

      Although I do have this gnawing pain in my gut until I can taste the bile rising up my throat and into my mouth. Well. Maybe I'm a little bitter. Or else I just have heartburn; anybody have a TicTac?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:But it's not crazy by maharb · · Score: 1

      Someone mod parent up. The service tells the customers that humans could look at it and I am pretty sure that right there means it is ethical (to all those below screaming about ethics).

    7. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you right up till the impregnate part. Why the fuck would you want to do that?

      The sex part is fun, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to knock her up.

    8. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also purposely words it to sound like they are doing it with a program.
      "ver the past four years D2 has been chomping through our words, learning thousands of new words every week"

    9. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I have an impregnation fetish, you insensitive clod. Seriously --- it's very erotic to have completely uninhibited, unprotected sex that satisfies our most primordial instincts. As much as we might kick ourselves afterward, there's no greater visceral satisfaction that filling up a fertile woman with spunk.

    10. Re:But it's not crazy by sixtrillionmiles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of my first jobs was for a company that scanned medical records and had computers read the text. Or, at least, that was how they advertised it. Actually it was me and about 100 other people reading the medical records and typing them in...

    11. Re:But it's not crazy by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      It may be they lied about keeping user supplied data in house, and they may have implied that they used advanced technological means to do the transcription, but if their service does what it says I can't blame them for using human labour to do the transcription.

      Controlling who has access to the private messages in a particular way is part of what they said they would do for the people using the service, so, no, if they said they were doing automated transcription and keeping all personal data inside Europe when in fact they were sending it outside of Europe and having humans transcribe it, the service was not doing what they claimed.

      And, again assuming the claims are true, the way in which it was not doing what it claimed was quite probably a way that was both important to its users.

    12. Re:But it's not crazy by kbromer · · Score: 1

      Whoa, whoa, whoa... "Unskilled labor"??? You just TRY and call my wife 'unskilled labor'. Trust me, doesn't work out well.

    13. Re:But it's not crazy by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      It's the difference between "what" and "how". It does WHAT it says (transcribes voice mail to text), but not HOW they say (employees instead of algorithms, cheap countries instead of home).

      It's quite silly actually. I personally don't care much about the "how" (as long as my "data" is indeed anonymized), so I don't understand why they'd lie about it.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    14. Re:But it's not crazy by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You try to hard, it's really not that complicated.

      A brain comes from moron woman even if it has the IQ of a contraceptive sponge.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    15. Re:But it's not crazy by Molochi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where are we as a species, if making babies is a fetish?

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    16. Re:But it's not crazy by MrMista_B · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And now you're saying that people who barely speak or understand English, let alone the subtlties of the language, being paid to transcribe English, is 'technically sound' and 'the best way to do it'? ...

      Frankly, I'm not sure anymore if you're serious, or just being sarcastic.

      Next you'll probably tell me "Oh, see that motherboard made of flammable wood? Regardless of it's flammability, it's the best flame-proof way to make a motherboard."

    17. Re:But it's not crazy by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sadly, it is. Many schools, even in third world and fourth world nations, teach English as their second language for people to participate in business with other groups, even other cultures within their same nations. English _is_ the trade language for this era. And compared to the absolute nonsensical debris most speech algorithms generate in poor acoustic environments, human brains designed by evolution and by education to tease speech out of background environments remain the best speech recognition tool.

    18. Re:But it's not crazy by Weedhopper · · Score: 4, Informative

      And now you're saying that people who barely speak or understand English, let alone the subtlties of the language, being paid to transcribe English, is 'technically sound' and 'the best way to do it'? ...

      I think it's more likely that these people speak better, more grammatically correct English than the average Brit or American.

      I find it likely that the majority of these people who worked in these centers are young, recent college/university graduates who are doing this because they couldn't find another well paying job. This isn't a bunch of Angolans or Indonesians. We're talking about South Africans and Filipinos. The well educated South African and Filipino speaks, reads and writes excellent English.

      For that matter, the same is probably true of Egyptians. Though I can't say that with any certainty because I don't know too many Egyptians.

    19. Re:But it's not crazy by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1
      Well said. I was hesitant to keep feeding the troll, but your explanation has hit the nail on the head.

      It's weird watching the moderating of my original post fluctuate - it went form +5 insightful to +1 overated-flamebait in the space of half an hour. I can't for the life of me figure that one out.

      I think I'll just stick to typing dictated notes...

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    20. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think he may be calling your mother "unskilled labor".

    21. Re:But it's not crazy by zonky · · Score: 1

      There have been some pretty serious allegations against the company made here in the last few days: http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-spinvox-paying-staff-in-stock-to-save-on-costs/

    22. Re:But it's not crazy by zonky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Humans look at every message, not some. The patent explains this quite clearly: http://www.ipexl.com/patents/en/USPTOApps/Spinvox_Limited/Doulton_Daniel_Michael/20090170478.html

    23. Re:But it's not crazy by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Nobody has a funny accent when they type. Other than the accent and occasional odd phrasing (which would never come out in a transcription service - english to english is pretty frickin easy), most of these people speak excellent English, particularly since it is a second language for all of them.

      Hell, my last college english class was taught by an Indian immigrant. She had a heavy accent, but her English was very precise and correct. The only annoying thing was she liked the word "rubric", and rolled her r's heavilly.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    24. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I belivee those are Rumsfeld's Known Unknowns

    25. Re:But it's not crazy by plnix0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're not native English-speakers. They are learning thousands of new words every week.

    26. Re:But it's not crazy by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Their service says that they use advanced technological means to do the transcription. They do not.

      Any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from a Pakistani sweat shop worker.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    27. Re:But it's not crazy by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Well it is possible to anonymise the data somewhat. It's very easy for software to detect distinct words even if it can't transcribe them, so if it passes different parts of the sentence to different people, they're unlikely to reconstruct it.

      To go even farther - most software provides a confidence level for recognition that can be on a per word basis, so they could take any words with a confidence level under 50 and send those words out to the humans, while keeping the high confidence words from the machine separate until they're combined into the final transcription.

    28. Re:But it's not crazy by plnix0 · · Score: 1

      If your message includes your name, or the name of someone else you know, then by definition it's not anonymized.

    29. Re:But it's not crazy by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1, Troll

      Calling him a troll just because he shoots your argument full of holes is plain stupid.

      And moderation goes up and down on Slashdot. Maybe the later moderators saw him destroy your argument.

    30. Re:But it's not crazy by dissy · · Score: 1

      What?

      No.

      Their service says that they keep user supplied data in house. They do not.
      Their service says that they use advanced technological means to do the transcription. They do not.

      How on earth do you take that to mean 'their service does what it says'?

      You are wrong.

      You seemed to have forgotten to attach Proof.zip before hitting send.
      You say "They do not" as if one could tell from the situation that they do or do not.

      Knowing how companies lie, you clearly can not choose the wine in front of them.
      Knowing how disgruntled ex-employees lie, you can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

    31. Re:But it's not crazy by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1
      Sure, mod points come and go. It's just not often I see things change so quickly. I would hope, though, that they aren't modding me down simply based on differing opinion.

      I considered Mr Mista troll-like because of the pattern of constructing strawmen from my points, followed by completely unrelated rhetorical baiting. I could be wrong - he might be earnest; wouldn't be the first time someone was wrong on the internet.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    32. Re:But it's not crazy by mi · · Score: 1

      Their service says that they keep user supplied data in house. They do not.

      .

      They still might. For example, they may be sending pieces of the recordings to different people (in different parts of the world) for parsing. Overlapping 2- or 3-second slices for example. And then their "advanced techonology" may glue the words discerned by the humans into sentences. The supplied data thus never leaves the house in a form, that's of use to anybody, which is all that matters.

      Their service says that they use advanced technological means to do the transcription. They do not.

      You don't know this either — using humans does not prevent use of "advanced technological means" as well.

      How on earth do you take that to mean 'their service does what it says'?

      If I get the voice-mail transcribed to text properly, then "their service does what it says". That's all.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    33. Re:But it's not crazy by mi · · Score: 1

      so I don't understand why they'd lie about it.

      If a 10-second message is sliced into 10 overlapping 2-second pieces, then 10 different humans across the globe have to parse the few words out of each piece and send it back. The software (running on an in-house computer) can then process the overlapping transcriptions and put together the full text, even applying automatic spell- and grammar-checkers to smooth out the result.

      This way, one could use cheap labor overseas, but still claim, that your data never leaves the home country — because those short segments aren't of any use to anybody, who has no way to find other pieces of the message.

      So, they may not be lying after all...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    34. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that to some people, pregnant chicks are just plains SEXY. I'm not sure why, but that glow is SO HOT.

    35. Re:But it's not crazy by Eivind · · Score: 1

      You're doing it wrong. I had my wedding paid for by my wife, and nevertheless 3 kids. ,-)

    36. Re:But it's not crazy by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      Spinvox states a computerprogram will do the transcription and call upon human aide when it doesn't know how to transcribe something.

      If there is in fact no computerprogram actually in use transcribing messages at spinvox then they are lying AND unethical.

      If the computerprogram exists, is actually attempting to transcribe messages but is in fact failing in most cases; then they are not technically lying, but STILL unethical and falsely representing their business. (The last thing is still pretty important to stockholders.)

      Anyway, if any of this is true on the scale it is implied, than Spinvox is morally and ethically bankrupt.

    37. Re:But it's not crazy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It still beats Babelfish.

      Though... considering the wording of the translations, one has to wonder...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    38. Re:But it's not crazy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And here's exactly the problem: Privacy, secrecy and anonymity.

      A computer does not care what he translates. It doesn't 'read' (or 'listen to') your message. It picks it apart logically on semantics and assembles a message in another language based on this.

      Humans read, understand, translate and write. And the 'understand' part is the one with the security and confidentality issue. And don't tell me "they're some dumb idiots in Backwater Nowhere, they don't understand what's written and they don't care". Says who? Depending on where you hang your tinfoil hat, anything's possible from Chinese trade espionage (China has invested heavily in Africa, they're outsourcing now, too) to terrorism (Africa has a few countries with a sizable Muslim population, if you swing that way you could ponder the possibility to recruit there, too).

      Now, of course a computer can be programmed to extract information, too, so such a service should NOT be used for sensitive data, no matter however it is translated, and no matter what claims and promises a company makes. What changes, though, is the likelyness of it happening. If it is automatically translated, you need the company to be crooked. When it's operators, all you have to do is slip them a few extra bucks for a transcript of their daily work.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re:But it's not crazy by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From a purely evolutionary point of view? We're quite sane, if you ask me. If the idea of impregnating your woman gives you a boner, I'd say it's about as close to the original idea behind sex as it can be.

      Don't tell anyone but, hey, getting her pregnant was the idea behind fucking. I know, it kinda changed in the meantime, but originally, that was the plan.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    40. Re:But it's not crazy by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Funny

      *sigh* What happened to good ol' rape?

      Ok, snide and tasteless comments aside. The only thing it takes a lot of is time. Women can get quite desperate when they hear their biological clock tick away. Unfortunately that happens after their best before date...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:But it's not crazy by Bored+Grammar+Nazi · · Score: 1

      If a 10-second message is sliced into 10 overlapping 2-second pieces, then 10 different humans across the globe have to parse the few words out of each piece and send it back. The software (running on an in-house computer) can then process the overlapping transcriptions and put together the full text, even applying automatic spell- and grammar-checkers to smooth out the result.

      What a terrible solution. Don't you see the problems with that? If you split a sentence into shorter parts then you lose both the context and the meaning of bigger entities (idioms, compound words/adjectives, phrasal/prepositional verbs). You will have trouble with homophones too (the input is audio, after all). Taking as an example part of your first sentence, imagine that you have to transcribe "...the globe have..." into text. Without the "across" you wouldn't know whether to transcribe as "glove" or "globe".

    42. Re:But it's not crazy by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

      Regarding south africa, I can only partly agree. I've recently left south africa, but two of my friends work in a call center for the UKZN(university of kzn), and they need to have verbal/written communication skills. However, the UK Mobile provider 'Orange' has a call center in durban as well, and the people there were barely literate, so I guess it depends on how much the company is willing to spend on call centers.

    43. Re:But it's not crazy by quadrox · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You are a troll/idiot if I ever saw one. He never said anything that is unreasonable. He never claimed that the company behaved ethicall/morally correct, that it was a good idea do outsource this to other countries or anything even remotely like that. What he said was only this:

      1) Yes they lied, but:
      2) Human brains are the best way to solve the given problem (currently)

      What is so wrong about that?

    44. Re:But it's not crazy by quadrox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhh... Somehow I got confused about who said what - disregard above post or mod it down into obscurity where it belongs...

    45. Re:But it's not crazy by jimicus · · Score: 1

      "Able to speak grammatically correct ${LANGUAGE} when in a classroom environment, there's little background noise and everything is being enunciated nice and slowly" is a thousand times removed from "Able to hold a conversation in ${LANGUAGE} as well as any native ${LANGUAGE} speaker".

    46. Re:But it's not crazy by fiontan · · Score: 1

      And don't forget words that cannot be transcribed without context, such as their/there/they're and which/witch... "I'm going over there, which is useful because I need to talk to whoever anyway" vs "I wouldn't give their witch any credibility".

    47. Re:But it's not crazy by tomcrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's more likely that these people speak better, more grammatically correct English than the average Brit or American.

      Since when has the average person spoken grammatically correct British/American English? What about slang, regional vocabulary, accents?

      I think it'd be hard for a native speaker to translate in a lot of cases e.g. north/south in the UK.

    48. Re:But it's not crazy by somersault · · Score: 1

      Except that b and v have a different sound..

      Stuff like I scream/ice cream would be a problem though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    49. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more likely that these people speak better, more grammatically correct English than the average Brit or American.

      That would make them just about the worst people to transcribe our texts then no? I have a fairly mild Scottish accent (in fact according to those north of Perth, everyone in Edinburgh has English accents :S) and use few colloquialisms and still this service mangles my messages. Its fair enough, I don't really expect people outside of Scotland to understand every word I speak - hell I don't expect anyone to understand every damn word - but you'd think it would make sense for 'natural' English speakers i.e. those who speak it daily and are aware of the subtleties of the language and dialects to be performing this service?

      By the way, this is really the least of the all the problems with this service. How the hell can /. get so wound up about wiretapping and then be completely cool about people listening in on the bloody messages?!

    50. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to those north of Perth, everyone in Edinburgh has English accents :S

      That's probably because Edinburgh University *is* full of English students!

    51. Re:But it's not crazy by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      "Hello my name is Bill. I want to have children. Would you like to be the vessel to carry them?"

      "Hello my name is Sally. I want to have children. Would you like to donate your sperm?"

      If we were honest, then that's how we would all introduce ourselves. Perhaps those cultures with arranged marriages are being the most honest of all - marriage is for the purpose of creating children, not romance.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    52. Re:But it's not crazy by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Well sure if you want a slow brain equivalent to an 8088 IBM PC. If you want the more-powerful brain that's the organic equivalent of the latest 4000 megahertz CPU, then you need a woman with a high IQ.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    53. Re:But it's not crazy by Inda · · Score: 1

      I work with an Egyptian. His American English is excellent even if his manners suck dogs dick.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    54. Re:But it's not crazy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Marriage is for the purpose of making the whole deal socially acceptable. It's been proven time and again that marriage is no requirement for procreation.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    55. Re:But it's not crazy by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      >Except that b and v have a different sound..

      Sayith the (wo)man who has never* worked in a call center ;) Customers I speak with rarely articulate clearly enough to understand b versus v without context.


      *or it was long enough ago for the scars to heal :)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    56. Re:But it's not crazy by alecwood · · Score: 1

      It's no triviality, the exporting of data. It's a serious breach of UK & European law. If they survive long enough to be hauled over the coals by each data commissioner they're unlikely to survive that process.

      --
      Real happiness lies in the completion of work using your own brains and skills.
    57. Re:But it's not crazy by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I remember a girl (I think she was from somewhere in africa) in my first year tutorial group at university (i'm in the UK). If you listened to her speak you would not be able to tell she wasn't british.

      However she had very little grasp of english sayings and the like meaning every time someone used one it would trip her up. This made conversing with her really disconcerting.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    58. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that the human labor is too expensive and they're losing money.

    59. Re:But it's not crazy by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      That's what I was wondering! Glad I'm not the only one! :D

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    60. Re:But it's not crazy by mi · · Score: 1

      If you split a sentence into shorter parts then you lose both the context and the meaning of bigger entities (idioms, compound words/adjectives, phrasal/prepositional verbs).

      Splitting into overlapping pieces may eliminate most of these problems. And you can't eliminate them all anyway as new idioms and clique-speak appear every day and plenty of people's speech can be deciphered only by their close associates anyway due to defects.

      As for homophones et. al — well, some of the inevitable mistakes there may be caught by the software grammar checkers applied after the transcribed pieces are glued back together. And, it may even be possible, that some questionable cases get forwarded (in entirety) to a better-paid human being in the same country.

      Finally, neither of us knows, how good the overall transcription really is. It may well be suffering from mis-transcribed homophones and other "tricky" pieces...

      My "solution" is, of course, inferior to having one person parse the entire message, but it was not even proposed as anything more than speculation on how the system could be set up to work as advertised...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    61. Re:But it's not crazy by zsau · · Score: 1

      Have you actually used a speech-to-text system? Not one that's meant to be trained, but one that has to work for anyone speaking their own informal English in their own weird accent while drunk. You can probably do that, even while drunk yourself. People are a lot more resilient than computers. We're designed for it and trained for it for decades. Sure, there's going to be errors. But if you think a computer is going to have less errors than a person at this sort of task, you're crazy.

      --
      Look out!
    62. Re:But it's not crazy by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I worked in a North American Company (I won't say whom) that also transcribed data this way, and you're right, its usually people going to or planning on College or University.

      They also make you go through some pretty Rigorous testing to make sure you understand English pretty well. Like those Grade 9 "Hand is to glove as Foot is to ___" kind of questions, but they get progressively harder. There was also a Math exam.

      Anyways, it was a decent job with decent pay.

    63. Re:But it's not crazy by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the privacy issues involved. The company claimed all the messages it translated never left the EC. Now we learn that people in South Africa and the Philippines are listening to and transcribing these messages, which violates EC data privacy rules. Did you RTFA?

    64. Re:But it's not crazy by stefancaunter · · Score: 1

      Context is everything, and awareness of relevant context is a differentiator between any communicators.
      In a classroom written context, there will be fewer noticeable differences between native speakers.
      As context becomes abstract and less predictable communication starts to break down. Things become less familiar. A great translator, transcriber, or interpreter knows how to adjust and compensate.

      The ability to identify the communicating community context is rare. When we say "native speaker" it's a narrow reference to that person's context of familiarity, and I think several posts are trying to discuss this aspect of communication.

    65. Re:But it's not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, giving this 5 minutes of thought and its very possible they do use advanced technology to do their transcription...

      Their service says it uses a combination...

      You can keep things anonymous by instead of sending the entire voicemail, you send chucks that are "uncertain" by the computer... In speech recognition we can get a level of certainty of knowing a word... Words that are low get chunked out and sent to some random person.. A single voicemail could end up being 'decoded' if you will by 500 people. Seems anonymous enough to me

      I think people are jumping down SpinVox's throat without having a f'ing clue what they are talking about.

    66. Re:But it's not crazy by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure they use a pretty sweet algorithm.

      can_translate = false;

      if (!can_translate)
      { // call Egypt
      }

      It knows when it can't translate it! Which turns out to be always.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    67. Re:But it's not crazy by maharb · · Score: 1

      Does that really matter in a ethics argument? Ethically they did their duty to tell the customer that people will look at messages. To a customer does it matter if some or all are looked at by humans? I don't see how thee is a difference (ethically).

    68. Re:But it's not crazy by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      Yes I did RTFA. I also specifically stated that I was talking about the merits of using humans for computationally hard problems. Just because their company had poor business practices doesn't mean that the technical method they were employing was necessarily flawed.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  3. Speech 3.0 by Wingman+5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now with 20% more vowels!

    1. Re:Speech 3.0 by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now with 20% more vowels!

      So it's Japanese? :-)

    2. Re:Speech 3.0 by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Speech 3.0: 50% more participants!

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Speech 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many vowels do you think Japanese has? Japanese has a tiny number of syllables compared to English, if you haven't noticed.

    4. Re:Speech 3.0 by treeves · · Score: 1

      Hawaiian.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    5. Re:Speech 3.0 by amake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He's probably referring to the frequency with which vowels appear in any given word. Yes, Japanese has only 5 vowels, but because almost all syllables in the language are simple (1 consonant)(1 vowel) pairs, almost every other letter in a written word is a vowel.

      A common tongue twister:

      Nama-mugi, nama-gome, nama-tamago (uncooked wheat, uncooked rice, uncooked eggs)

      Notice the abundance of vowels.

    6. Re:Speech 3.0 by godrik · · Score: 1

      I would have said 20% more useless stuff (from the web2.0 experience)

    7. Re:Speech 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A common tongue twister:

      Nama-mugi, nama-gome, nama-tamago (uncooked wheat, uncooked rice, uncooked eggs)

      Well try saying "uncooked wheat, uncooked rice, uncooked eggs" 10 times...

    8. Re:Speech 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uncooked: 4 vowels, 4 consonants
      Wheat: 2 vowels, 3 consonants
      Rice: 2 vowels, 2 consonants
      Eggs: 1 vowel, 3 consonants
      Ok, so, it's really not all that much better in English, is it?

    9. Re:Speech 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "raw wheat, raw rice, raw eggs" would be a better tongue twister...

    10. Re:Speech 3.0 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      With 20 percent more consonants, it would certainly be some slavic languate. Most likely Czech.

      Seriously. A language that uses N and R as a substitute for vowels has issues.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Speech 3.0 by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speech 3.0: 50% more hype.

      Seriously. I'm just waiting for "Web 3.0. For everyone that got fed up with Web 2.0 and wants more of everything."

      Web 2.0 was "You make the content, we make the profit".

      Web 3.0 will be "We also make you host the content through P2P, and we'd launch it, we haven't figured out how to make profit of it, though".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Speech 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Razbira ti glavata ot slavianski ezici, typa putka zaspala. Sho ne hodish da se grymnesh?

    13. Re:Speech 3.0 by amake · · Score: 1

      Actually that's a poor comparison. English spelling is different from Japanese in that there are lots of unpronounced letters, as well as single sounds spelled with multiple letters. What if we redo that with a more phonetic respelling* (imagine "hard" vowel pronunciation).

      Uncukd: 2 vowels, 4 consonants
      Wet: 1 vowel, 2 consonants
      Ris: 1 vowel, 2 consonants
      Egs: 1 vowel, 2 consonants

      That's consistently twice as many consonants as vowels. This is generally true because English syllables generally have one vowel and several consonants in various patterns (VCC, CVC, CCV) whereas, like I said, Japanese is almost always one consonant plus one vowel (CV).

      *I don't know IPA, but that would probably have been a better comparison.

    14. Re:Speech 3.0 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Str prst skrz krk.
      Vlk prv strhl srst srn, zhltl hrst zrn.
      Smrz pln skvrn zvlhl z mlh.
      plch zdrhl skrz drn, prv zhltl hrst zrn
      chrt pln skvrn vtrh skrz trs chrp v ctvrt Krc

      I do admit, I had to look them up. Also, I can see how the use of those sentences is a wee bit limited to very special occasions (read: they're fabricated and don't really have any sensible application). But they show that you can indeed form whole sentences without using a single vowel.

      What I'd wonder, do they have to pay for vowels in Czech Wheel of fortune? Or just for the 'R's?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Speech 3.0 by sorak · · Score: 1

      Oh, so when someone says sh!t, c0cks%ck3r, or t*rdf@c3, they're just using Speech 3.0? How does that help Business 3.0?

    16. Re:Speech 3.0 by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      A common tongue twister:

      Nama-mugi, nama-gome, nama-tamago (uncooked wheat, uncooked rice, uncooked eggs)

      - god, that's a tongue twister? It's way too easy to pronounce.

      Try this:

      Karl u Klary Ukral Koraly
      a Klara u Karla ukrala klarnet - try repeating it without mistakes.

      or this:

      na dvore trava, na trave drova - and repeat this a few times.

    17. Re:Speech 3.0 by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute! Some of those are diphthongs!!

  4. Business 3.0? by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We're not even done with Bubble 2.0 yet!

    1. Re:Business 3.0? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're already on Bubble 4.0. The first bubble was Goldman Sachs orchestration of the dot-com bubble (selling worthless websites to stock market speculators). The second was the mortgage bubble. Then Goldman Sachs orchestrated the oil bubble of 2008, and now they're creating another bubble built on money borrowed from China (aka the bailout bubble) which is not real production, but fiat.

      That's 4.

      So invest now in the market. Thanks to Goldman and their buds in the treasury/central bank (former GS employees), Bubble 4.0 will soar to 15,000 and sometime in 2004 will burst, so make sure to sell your stock in 2003. Aren't roller coasters fun?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Business 3.0? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When we repealed the (very good) legislation enacted in response to the Great Depression, we restore to market to its natural boom-bust cycle. We'll keep going through these periods until we restore the safeguards that our great-grandparents wisely created. Even without the dubious benefits of computer models and Chicago economics, these people gave us 50 years of prosperity that we've managed to wreck in a decade. Shouldn't we stop arrogantly assuming that they were wrong, we are right, and accept that we might need regulation after all?

    3. Re:Business 3.0? by generic.individual · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Deregulating everything would have worked great if the damn liberals hadn't snuck in all those new regulations. That's what the real problem is. Without the socialist/communist liberals a pinch of free market pixie dust is all it ever takes to overcome the greatest of obstacles. Of course, that pixie dust doesn't work when covered in a plastic condom of "checks" and "safe-guards"

    4. Re:Business 3.0? by bendodge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We need some regulation. The item we don't need that you forgot is subsidies.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    5. Re:Business 3.0? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      hate GS much? sell in 2003, do you have a time machine??!?!

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    6. Re:Business 3.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I like to create conspiracy theories about how various Open Source promoters are child molesters and then post it on the interwebs.

      Can you give me any tips?

    7. Re:Business 3.0? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      The problem is when we have this regulation, but other countries don't. It is all part of living in a global economy. If you hobble your own companies, then global companies grow bigger and the dominate.

    8. Re:Business 3.0? by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Looks like we got a bunch of conservatives modding tonight.

    9. Re:Business 3.0? by mi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When we repealed the (very good) legislation enacted in response to the Great Depression, we restore to market to its natural boom-bust cycle.

      False. Boom-bust continued after the WW2. We still have not hit some of the lows, that we've seen in the second half of the 20th century. For example, these days, the unemployment rate is yet to hit the 1982 levels of 10.8%...

      The current bubble came not from lack of regulation, but from inflated real-estate prices. That inflation is a direct consequence of government regulation — forcing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy lower-quality mortgages (all in the name of "helping the poor", of course).

      The people, who weren't previously qualified for a mortgages, suddenly could get one, increasing demand for houses. This pushed up the prices for all real estate and the rest is better known... As usual, government's meddling in the free market proved damaging. Highly so this time.

      That Obama-supporting news media managed to hang this around McCain's neck last year is a phenomenal show of mind-manipulation...

      these people gave us 50 years of prosperity

      Wrong again... I must wonder, if your historical revisionism is part of a troll... Only the 28 years from 1945 to 1973 are considered booming. By the end of 60ies we were going off of the Gold Standard (dollar become fiat money) and, sure enough, inflation ensued in the 1970ies.

      The regulation, that you lament so much, made our markets more efficient. Unfortunately, the government's meddling in the mortgage-rules has set this wonderfully efficient market in the wrong direction... Think of it this way — would you blame the car-maker for giving you a faster engine, if your car hits a log on the highway? Sure enough, if you were still riding a buggy, you would've stopped before the log and avoided the accident...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Business 3.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inflation ensued in the 1970ies

      No, that couldn't have had anything to do with the destructive and unprecedented external supply shock at the same time, no siree. The inflation is all the fault of people who slightly changed the philosophy of accounting.

    11. Re:Business 3.0? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      correction: "....soar to 15,000 and then burst in 2014, so make sure to sell your stock in 2013..."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:Business 3.0? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in your time machine than your stock speculation advice, to be honest - it seems to not only send you about 6-7 years back into the past, but also into an alternate reality.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    13. Re:Business 3.0? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Even with the "legislation enacted in response to the Great Depression", the market went through boom-bust cycles. Recessions in 1948, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973-74 (special case-OPEC oil embargo, not just U.S. business cycle), 1980 & 1981 (probably the same economic downturn with an uptick in the middle), 1991, 2001, 2008. Notice that since that since 1973-74 they have occurred with less frequency than before. The thing that changed in the early 70's was the U.S. going off of the gold standard.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    14. Re:Business 3.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, we didn't have any economic problems after the great depression and before the late nineties!

  5. How good can a transcription be? by Ponga · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously. If their target market is English speakers and the people doing the translating don't speak English as their primary language... dude. Seriously. Nevermind the privacy issues here...

    1. Re:How good can a transcription be? by SomeJoel · · Score: 1

      See, if a computer changes the word "plain" to "plane" then that's ok. However, if a non-English speaking person does it, well that's downright unacceptable!

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    2. Re:How good can a transcription be? by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      No, it's okay if they're in spane and it's raning.

    3. Re:How good can a transcription be? by ZosoZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      There service is grate eye ewe sit all the thyme and have no Corrs two comp lane. The dick shun eerie cheque reports no missed aches.

    4. Re:How good can a transcription be? by Pincus · · Score: 1

      That's what makes it authentic! If the transcription service got every word correct, you'd know something was fishy.

    5. Re:How good can a transcription be? by Celeste+R · · Score: 1

      Their can bee only won!

      --
      There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
    6. Re:How good can a transcription be? by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      What's the problem?

      There's no privacy issues. If the translators don't speak english, they won't learn any secrets.

      It's not a bug; it's a feature.

    7. Re:How good can a transcription be? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      But if its as good as regular voice recognition technology, who could tell the difference?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    8. Re:How good can a transcription be? by Celc · · Score: 1

      As a Sweed I take offence to the mockery of my accent.

    9. Re:How good can a transcription be? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Your use of the English language begs for a caning.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:How good can a transcription be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dude seriously", you don't have to use English are your primary language to understand it. Also for the record, writing and speaking English is a lot harder than hearing it by miles.

      Not to mention that as non-native English speaker I have an easier time understanding British English than my American friends.

    11. Re:How good can a transcription be? by Inda · · Score: 1

      When we the British owned (pnwed) India we taught them many things. English being one of them.

      Racist cunt.

      Ever spoken to someone from the Welsh valleys? Guess not.

      Ever spoken to someone from Newcastle or Liverpool? Guess not.

      Even though they are only 100-200 miles from me, they would have a hard time understanding my southern accent.

      Cunt.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    12. Re:How good can a transcription be? by sorak · · Score: 1

      Have you ever read closed captioning on television? I sometimes wonder if they don't have a drunken frat guy typing furiously to get it done in real time. Believe me, if closed captioning is good enough, then a South African who know some English is above and beyond.

    13. Re:How good can a transcription be? by tpholland · · Score: 1

      The Philippines, South Africa--English is an official language in both of those countries. The South Africans and Philippinos I've met may have had interesting accents, but either English was their first language or they were damn good at sounding like it.

  6. new text-to-speech algorithm by Pessimist+Cynic · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's awful.
    By the way I'm releasing a new text-to-speech service; the algorithm makes for a very smooth speech. It does however have a little bit of an accent.

  7. Pixie Dust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just need more of that.

  8. In case you were wondering.. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

    From their PDF:

    Speech 3.0: Fully-hosted, commercial strength SLAs, proven scale and reliability - no CapEx. Scales on demand to 150m capacity

    So Speech 3.0 provides 150 meters of service-level agreements with no experience-point cap.

    Voice 3.0: Superior and proven range of voice products. We repeatedly deliver great, mass-market experiences with our expertise in marketing and management of all lifecycle stages.

    Voice 3.0 takes you from larva, through pupa, all the way to butterfly, and then you die and get eaten.

    Business 3.0: Mature yet flexible business models - designed to adapt to the dynamics of service brands we partner with, from on-demand to full lifecycle revenue strategies

    Business 3.0 is apparently a flexible business model where they interact with their partners. So that's new I guess, no one has thought of that yet. It's also where people who write marketing buzzwords go to die.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    1. Re:In case you were wondering.. by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the laugh.

      You might also enjoy learning about the Turbo Encabulator.

    2. Re:In case you were wondering.. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, that made my eyes cross.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:In case you were wondering.. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      It's also where people who write marketing buzzwords go to die.

      I thought that was Redmond!?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    4. Re:In case you were wondering.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also where people who write marketing buzzwords go to die.

      I thought that was Redmond!?

      nice try dickshit.
      come up with something original asshole

    5. Re:In case you were wondering.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From their PDF:

      Business 3.0: Mature yet flexible business models

      I'd like to meet their "Mature yet flexible business models".

  9. Was bound to happen by gweihir · · Score: 1

    The speeck recognition people have broken their promises for several decades now. Using humans is still the only working speaker-independent way to do it.

    What I find surprising is that it is apparently not cost effective. Here is an alternate approach: Have people transcribe it, but let them look at "pictures" as reward. Seems to be working well in breaking catchpas, so why not for this?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Was bound to happen by forkazoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      The speeck recognition people have broken their promises for several decades now. Using humans is still the only working speaker-independent way to do it.

      Okay, humans never screw up their speeck recognition, but that doesn't guarantee that the speeck is correctly transcribed.

  10. Denial from Spinvox here by bheer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Spinvox has a denial here, claiming this is a case of disgruntled employees spreading falsehoods.

    Of course one'd expect them to deny it, but they've just upped the stakes. They would be in violation of UK privacy laws *and* lying through their teeth if this denial is false.

    1. Re:Denial from Spinvox here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to work at a place with a chief executive that hot. She's smoking. I'd run her sales report any day.

    2. Re:Denial from Spinvox here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you sure can hold a grudge for a long, loooong time.

      NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

    3. Re:Denial from Spinvox here by zonky · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, apparently they're disgruntled because allegedly they're getting private medical treatment denied because the premium's are not being paid, and they've been asked to salary for 2 months not as cash, but as share options.

    4. Re:Denial from Spinvox here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of a few ways for her to pay my salary, and none of them involve company stock.

    5. Re:Denial from Spinvox here by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's akin to saying someone who said he didn't kill someone could be due for murder AND contempt. Do you really care they care for the minuscle transgression if they're found guilty of the grave crime?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Denial from Spinvox here by VShael · · Score: 1

      They would be in violation of UK privacy laws *and* lying through their teeth if this denial is false.

      Wow. Maybe they should consider standing for Parliament.

    7. Re:Denial from Spinvox here by bheer · · Score: 1

      I have had to work with UK privacy laws before, and trust me, violating them is nothing like murder (see point #1 in the link). It's more like a slap on the wrists and a small fine. Lying and prolonging the media coverage, OTOH, means more customers get to find out that you're lying scumbags.

      Which is why IMHO Spinvox is indeed innocent (and is the victim of disgruntled employees) or an especially brazen scumbag.

  11. Automatic Slashdot speech-to-text by SomeJoel · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's nothing, I just bought an application that converts my speech to text. Read that back to me. I said, read that back to me. God damn it, what the hell is wrong with this thing. Stupid blinking light, what the hell is that supposed to mean? This is... oh here we go. No, don't send

    --
    <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    1. Re:Automatic Slashdot speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bender is WAY wittier.

  12. Captcha cracking by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    They could go a step further, using the strategy used to crack captchas, putting humans to "solve" the problem of telling what is being said in a sound file to be able to access the next part of a porn image or another kind of non economical incentive. Don't have to be the full message, just parts between pauses or things like that

  13. Nothing new here by ExtraT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Human transcription performed on industrial scale by non-native speakers is nothing new. For example, medical imaging texts are typed up by Cheap Foreign Labour from voice messages recorded by doctors.
    So remember this next time you read the analysis of your expensive MRI test. ;)

    1. Re:Nothing new here by kriston · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I mean you can see Benjamin Rand speaking into a medical transciption device as he modifies his will to include Peter Sellers' Chaunce the Gardener in the movie "Being There."

      --

      Kriston

    2. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best ... movie .... eva ....

      captcha: corrects

      See, even /. agrees

  14. When all you have is a hammer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    every problem looks like a nail.

    When all you have is six billion, renewable fueled, autonomous, self replicating, self housing, self programing, hundred billion node neural networks...
    who the fuck needs an AI for voice recognition?

  15. Bender vs Apu by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Losing your job to Bender: technological progress.

    Losing your job to Apu: outrage.

    But really, what's the difference? A service is a service. It's all progress .. sort of.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Bender vs Apu by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Funny
      fail.

      bender does the job perfectly over and over for a lower cost.

      Apu does a poor job, frequently making mistakes to the point he isn't cheaper in the long run.

      THAT is where the outrage comes from.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Bender vs Apu by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      bender does the job perfectly over and over for a lower cost.

      You obviously haven't seen bender work.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:Bender vs Apu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nobody has ever seen Bender work. Anyone who says he has done work is lying.

    4. Re:Bender vs Apu by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      Losing your job to Bender: technological progress.

      If you lost your job to Bender it means you're even lazier then the guy who accept packages at the moon amusement park

    5. Re:Bender vs Apu by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I call Raciest on you.

      You must not have worked with Indians before, they are just as good if not better then most American Workers, today.
      Especially if you have a good management team who can talk the language and know the culture. Sure you will come up a couple of bad eggs or some horror stories. But really you can get those same stories from any group of people. However I find them in general to be very motivated workers and rather quite intelligent and willing to learn new things. They became the american ideal while we have gotten fat lazy and feeling entitled.

      The Robot will not do the job perfectly, hence the completive advantage of SpinBox humans can translate human speech better then a computer can. Robots have a lot of hidden costs as well. You change your process you need a full set of new robots and technology. Or you spend a lot of money for more general use robots which preform slower.

      The cost of outsourcing isn't as cheap as saying well and American gets paid $25 an hour while an Indian gets paid $5 so it is 5 times cheaper working with India. There is extra management of working with people in different areas and other costs however this is a management issue which can be optimized to work.

      I am sure if the work was being outsourced to a country were people speak the same language and look and have a similar culture to us and lighter skin, then there would be less of an outrage. You may deny that fact, and you may believe your denial. However I bet if you honestly looked in yourself you will realize most of the outrage with Indian workers is that they are not you race of people.

      Outsourcing to India has many benefits besides cost being halfway around the world allows 24 hour operations. In essence doubling your output. And they are hard workers who do good quality work. Now if your management is stupid then you may get bad results but that is true anywhere.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Bender vs Apu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Huh? What about Luddites?

      People have been irate about losing their job to technology for a very long time.

      And, people have been outrages about losing their job to immigrants for a long time.

      I bet being outraged at losing one's job to outsourcing is the newest social phenomena.

      You see, people want jobs and don't like losing their jobs. That's the source of the outrage, not the mechanism of job loss.

    7. Re:Bender vs Apu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >lazier then the guy

      May be you are more lazy _THAN_ the guy that learn English as a second language.

      If THEN else
      Greater THAN

      If you don't even know these two, then you are not qualify to be on slashdot.

    8. Re:Bender vs Apu by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      >May be you are more lazy _THAN_ the guy that learn English as a second language.

      And you must be lazier than the guy that _LEARNED_ English as a second language.

      >If you don't even know these two, then you are not qualify to be on slashdot.

      I guess you're even less _QUALIFIED_ to be on Slashdot.

    9. Re:Bender vs Apu by pbhj · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I call Raciest on you.

      You must not have worked with Indians before, they are just as good if not better then most American Workers, today.

      All the ones I speak to in India are liars.

      Guy on phone: "Hello, my name is Gordon"
      Me: "Then how come you can't pronounce it?"
      Guy: "We are calling from 3, your phone supplier, do you have contract at the moment"
      Me: "If you're my supplier, you tell me"
      Guy: "I'm sorry .."
      Me: [HUP].

      Beats starving to death for sure. If they didn't start the call by lying to me they'd stand a chance of me listening.

    10. Re:Bender vs Apu by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      So Indian people do a better job than white people for cheaper. Hmm. Who's the racist again?

      Also, your concept of these hidden costs is way off. These "robots" are merely software - you don't necessarily need new hardware to run new software.

    11. Re:Bender vs Apu by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are missing the point. Bender stays in the EU, so he's bound by the laws of the EU. Moreover, it's not probable for Bender to go off and steal your data. Okay, he might accidentally burp it all up. But he wouldn't go use the information to extort you. (Well, he would. But I mean a computer wouldn't.) Apu might go and Nigerian spam your ass using the information you were lead to believe was kept highly confidential.

      Also, the idea of having a robot transcribe your love messages is far more acceptable to many than having a guy listen to your deepest thoughts and giggling while doing so. Who knows? He might even put a few jokes in there.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    12. Re:Bender vs Apu by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Exterminate all humans and have a utopia run by robots. Great Success! Computers and robots *never* make mistakes.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    13. Re:Bender vs Apu by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If that is the case, then the jobs will come flooding back in the long run anyway. So alls well that ends well.

    14. Re:Bender vs Apu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So where is your outrage against the western corporation that hired them to lie to you?

    15. Re:Bender vs Apu by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, the idea of having a robot transcribe your love messages is far more acceptable to many than having a guy listen to your deepest thoughts and giggling while doing so. Who knows? He might even put a few jokes in there.

      Heck, you can just see it...that's movie material right there.

      Spinvox employee #1 to Spinvox employee #2: "Oh man, will you look at this? How is this guy ever expecting to get laid when this is how he tries to woo a woman?"

      Spinvox employee #2 to Spinvox employee #1: "Well, we did just get paid for the first time in 3 months. Heck, I'm in a good mood, give it to me and I'll fix it up a bit for him."

      Queue 2 hours of cheesy Hollywood romantic comedy ending with customer's girlfriend living happily ever after with Spinvox employee #2.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    16. Re:Bender vs Apu by linzeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are some fucking idiots in India too but really the quality is about the same as the states per individual and a crap shoot on a company that has no track record. I've had good experience in India too and I'm Buddhist so I greatly respect the Indian culture and peoples, but when I've had a bad experience in India it was like getting skullfucked with a hot poker, mostly because the Indians were far more racist than anyone on my team back in the states and talked to us like we were fucking children, lied to us, made up fake reasons the product was not out the door on time and when we finally got the code it took us 10 seconds to realize they had stolen it all from some open source projects and run it through a munger/renamed some variables. The good experiences we have had outweigh the bad but the bad experience caused us to re-evaluate doing in-house projects and look to using COTS or open source solutions instead.

    17. Re:Bender vs Apu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some that make it a racist screed, but the simple fact of the matter is this is jobs being directly moved offshore for no other purpose than greed. It's happened before with manufacturing jobs and procuring raw materials and the like, now it's happening with the white collar workers.

      In almost every example, these are or were good paying, skilled work for fair wages jobs.

      If it continues than the critical mass of people in the US in the middle class goes away, combine that with aging workforce and an economy built on debt and it spells ruin for the US economy. And since the US economy drives a large chunk of the global economy, it only goes down from there.

    18. Re:Bender vs Apu by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We should use another robot but Bender as the analogy here. He just doesn't fit. Bender WOULD steal your data, he WOULD use it to extort you, and on top of it all he WOULD spam your ass to death.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Bender vs Apu by Lillesvin · · Score: 1

      Wildly OT, but I can't resist...

      Bender actually works on several occasions - especially the episode Bendless Love (S03E06) comes to mind, where he's scabbing his way out of sleep-bending. :-)

      --
      "Live free or don't."
    20. Re:Bender vs Apu by Inda · · Score: 1

      I spoke to a lady in India recently. She worked for Virgin Media.

      Extremely helpful. Very polite. Soft Indian accent.

      I'd go as far as saying she sounded sexy.

      The idea is that we all become highly educated with hundreds of Indians working under us. Sadly we're either not smart enough and/or our governments aren't providing a high enough standard of schooling.

      The Indians will overtake us soon enough and we all know it - this is the outcry.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    21. Re:Bender vs Apu by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      He's only doing it so he'll stop bending the professor's spine in his sleep. After the cheerful optimistic outlook that gave him the first time, who wants that to ever happen again, even by accident?

    22. Re:Bender vs Apu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is he missing the point? Privacy discussions aside, in most of the cases, any hypothetical Bender is still being produced and deployed and maintained by Apu, in a country which is not bound by the laws of the EU.

      Besides, there are so many potential violations of privacy during the "transmission" phase of those love messages, unless you are face-to-face which I assume you aren't due to the nature of speech recognition, I don't think some random guy on the other side of the world hearing it matters on a rational(not emotional) basis.

    23. Re:Bender vs Apu by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't the nationality of the people, it's just that in the big management outsourcing fad, India is by far the most common location these days.

      The problem is outsourcing to the low bidder operating under a different legal system. Such a bidder will almost inevitably hire the cheapest and least qualified locals it can get it's hands on and get away with. It's not that Indian workers are intrinsically in the bottom 10%, it's that the outsourcing provider will hire the bottom 10% of available Indian workers (who are about as good as the bottom 10% of American workers but cheaper due to the exchange rate/cost of living) so they can be the low bidder and still make a fat profit.

      At the societal level, the problem is outsourcing to the low bidder operating in a different economy with an extremely favorable exchange rate. It's compounded when most of the benefits are pocketed as a large profit ($150 shoes made for less than $10). Essentially, they are liquidating the overall prosperity of the economy into cash. The problem is that the prosperity they liquidate belongs to everyone but the cash goes only to them. Effectively, they hoover your bank account into theirs, they just do so in a sufficiently roundabout way that the law doesn't cover it.

    24. Re:Bender vs Apu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call 'raciest' on you. If you were not 'raciest', you would say that Indians are just as good as Americans. The fact that you think they are at a minimum as good as American, and maybe better makes you a 'raciest' in my book

    25. Re:Bender vs Apu by isBandGeek() · · Score: 1

      However I find [Indians] in general to be very motivated workers and rather quite intelligent and willing to learn new things. They became the american ideal while we [Americans] have gotten fat lazy and feeling entitled.

      Isn't this stereotyping?

    26. Re:Bender vs Apu by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      That's mostly a bunch of bullshit.

      Indian workers can be as hard working or as lazy as their American counterparts, but to claim that it's more than about money is bull. It's all about the money.

      I've been in IT for close to 20 years, and remember when the first outsourced workers started appearing as developers. They were very smart -- generally the top of their class -- and it showed in their work ethic and their ability to get the job done. Then it changed. Outsourcing companies exhausted the top workers in their field and started accepting the next tier. After those were exhausted, they started bringing in the next tier. Sound familiar? It's what happened with the certification craze that went on for a while.

      There is absolutely no doubt that outsourced employees are initially less expensive than local workers. For certain types of jobs it's much cheaper to shop the requirements out and then get bids. There is also no doubt that many of the current group of workers suck.

      And I will also say that many of the current crop of outsourced workers really and truly suck. I've had to deal with supposed Perl-developers that don't know how to use a hash table. One Java "pro" couldn't figure out how to launch Eclipse and another tried to vi a jar file. This wouldn't have happed 5 years ago, but that's how bad they are now.

      And for the record my wife is Indian and I'm Asian.

    27. Re:Bender vs Apu by pbhj · · Score: 1

      You can be assured it's there - note I don't blame the person for lying "beats starving".

      It's a tricky one though as to whether it's better to deny them the call-centre jobs or not (by affirmative action in choosing/ pressing companies not to use foreign call centres).

  16. The more you know by forand · · Score: 1

    South Africa and the Philippines have large english speaking populations.

    1. Re:The more you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does my asshole you faggot piece of shit!

    2. Re:The more you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf?

    3. Re:The more you know by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      South Africa has a sizeable population of native English speakers (descendants of British settlers), but not the Philippines.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    4. Re:The more you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His asshole has many South Africans in it.

  17. General purpose voice recognition* doesn't work by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    If I can't understand a Geordie, let alone a god damn American, how the fuck will a computer, I doubt the Africans/Asians (who despite above claims probably speak the queens English a damn sight better than most of you guys (assuming slashdot is populated by gorram Americans)) will get it spot on, but their internal algorithms have had a data set of at least 18 years to train on, this beats any automated system!. Voice recognition* has its places (e.g the iPhone does it right), but transcription is not one of them, if humans work best (and I'm pretty fucking sure they will), just use humans and perhaps use automated cleanup on the input (remove names) and the output (use grammar checking).

    *s/Voice recognition/Any natural language input/g

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    1. Re:General purpose voice recognition* doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You kinda just described in a bit what Spinvox actually do. They process the audio, get rid of any 'audio white spaces', detect the language and accent, detect names, generate a best possible text representation of the audio and then ... detect any text which can be turned into an acronym, detect and obfuscate profanities and then hand it over to a human agent who would verify that the text matches the audio and make any corrections if the software couldn't 'listen' well. It is a pretty smart piece of software this. Its just that the management in their is like an inexperienced driver who forgets to keep the correct distance from any obstacles ahead driving on a wet road.

  18. ridiculous by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

    they dont even need to have speech recognition, they just need to recognize when a few word is spoken and have people listen to individual words.

  19. SpinVox: Amazon's got you covered by WidgetGuy · · Score: 1

    Meet the Mechanical Turk.

    --
    One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  20. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I have been using spinvox on my phone for almost two years. It works great, I don't ever get phone messages that have private / sensitive info. Even if they come out and say that they've been using people all this time, I'd still want to continue using the service. It's been great rarely having to listen to voice messages. In the past, my messages would build up for weeks to the point that my mailbox would be full and then I'd go through and delete them. If I had a missed call I'd call back and not listen to the message first. Now, I get an email almost immediately and can conveniently read the message. Maybe I'm just super lazy, but I like the service privacy issues be damned.

  21. Economic Dogmas by copponex · · Score: 3, Informative

    The real problem is that people have lost their heads in the United States. The return of evangelicals has led to an atmosphere that is literally opposed to science. So, you get exactly what you expect. Opinions that are based on anecdote and wish thinking instead of data. The reason science works is because you start with the assumption that you don't know something until you can prove that you probably know it, with repeatable, verifiable results. When you start trusting the word of pill junkies and homophobic college dropouts versus the entire scientific community and their reams of data, get ready for some wide-reaching and catastrophic fuckups.

    Canada kept the rules. The Canadian banking system is still the most sound. Every time we take cops off the financial beat, we end up with a banking crisis. These realities can be arrived at by simply reading about the last 30 years of panics, and the hundred years of bank panics that existed before the FDIC and sensible Great Depression legislation.

    But leave it to the same fuckers from Harvard, who apparently can't even manage a college trust without running it into the ground.

    The pro-market propaganda will continue, and probably destroy our economy beyond repair. And then some wise ass will say that it shows that the market does work, by wiping itself out.

    1. Re:Economic Dogmas by binkzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't quite see how you can blame this on Evangelics, whether they're real Evangelics or just by name.

      The cause of economic downfall is almost always plain greed.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    2. Re:Economic Dogmas by copponex · · Score: 1

      Greed built on the naivete and faux-pious nature of blind followers, who will do whatever you ask as long as you pretend to believe in their ancient mysticism. People who are taught not to ask questions are the easiest to manipulate and control, which is why the GOP found religion in the 90s. In reality they found a voting bloc dumb enough to vote against their own interests, which, for the business party that runs both aisles, is a truly spiritual experience.

      The root problem of religion is that it kills minds by telling them they're not allowed to think beyond the scope of a few hundred pages of complete bullshit. To submit to the will of master, and become a slave. It's voluntary lobotomy and self-inflicted never-ending bondage rolled into one.

    3. Re:Economic Dogmas by binkzz · · Score: 1

      Greed isn't built on naivety as much as it is built on the fear of missing out or out of hunger for power.

      Of all the people I know, Christians are the most generous. Also, The Bible encourages you to think and question everything. If you say it's a few hundred pages of bullshit, I am certain you have not read it or are keeping yourself blind. Whether you believe in God or not, the Bible contains fundamental truths that nobody in their right mind could deny: treating people with respect, forgiving, sharing, loving yourself and other people.

      If you believe in your description of religion, I can imagine you're afraid of it, or angry at it.

      People have always and will continue to abuse everything that can be used, including religion. But if you base your view solely on the people who abuse it, you keep yourself in the dark.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    4. Re:Economic Dogmas by copponex · · Score: 1

      I've read the bible all the way through, right after I got saved. Once I finished it, I quit the church, and religions in general, because they kept asking me to accept it on faith instead of what it actually said.

      I don't believe in a God who could ever justify any number of things in the old testament. I don't believe the world is 6000 years old, because Shell does not bet it's billion dollars on some ideas from stupendously uneducated peasants in the Middle East. I know I wouldn't consider a person good and moral if they ever punished me for not liking them, and I don't make exceptions for God just because some person claims he is above my judgement.

      So, if you believe that a person should be joyous when they dash an infants head against a rock, or a female slave is less valuable then a male slave, or that Jews are better than Amalachites, or God suspended the order of the universe to allow his followers to slaughter every man, woman, child, and animal (but saving the virgins for themselves) in a rival village, or that a woman can give birth without having sex, or that Diabolical Mimicry is the devil at work, or that you can cure leprosy by killing a bird in a certain way, please continue being a Christian. I'll continue to pity what they have done to your reasoning skills.

      You don't believe in Ra, Zeus, Dionysus, Mithras, Zoroaster, or any other flight of fancy from other cultures, though they are all sons of God, born of a virgin, who died and rose to save their followers. You've developed a blind spot for Christ because it's convenient to your worldview, not because it's true.

      Every culture has moral reasoning for treating people with respect, loving each other, and being kind to the unfortunate. This does not prove that religions provided us with these values, but it does show that the only good portions of religion are borrowed from evolutionary morality everyone already possesses. A social group that doesn't support it's members when they need help getting back on their feet does not last.

    5. Re:Economic Dogmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience in the US is that those who claim to be the most Christian are often superficially generous in their small circle of friends and relations, but ironically they tend to be cold-hearted towards those unfortunates whom they should really care about (if they followed the teachings of Christ). I have to admit, I've met some modest folk who really seem generous, living to Christian ideals rather than claiming to them. But I've also met such generosity from other non-Christian backgrounds. Now at midlife, I've come to the conclusion that most good people are good for some reason separate from (or only mildly modified by) their religions. There just doesn't seem to be a strong correlation.

    6. Re:Economic Dogmas by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      You can blame anything on anyone if you want to badly enough.
      P.S. The sky isn't falling either.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:Economic Dogmas by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      The cause of economic downfall is almost always plain greed.

      Greed is a constant of human nature. The failure is in effectively channeling and mitigating greed, which in turn is a failure of policy.

    8. Re:Economic Dogmas by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      The phenomenon you are describing is actually post modernism, and not due to teh rise of teh eeevil evangelicals. In short, we grew distrustful of the faux rationalism of modernism, and sick of waiting for it to deliver it's widely tumpeted predictions of a better, more just future. Don't blame evangelicals for the failure of modernism. Modernists/Atheists have no-one to blame but themselves.

    9. Re:Economic Dogmas by binkzz · · Score: 1

      You make some interesting points, but your prematurely drawn conclusions about me and my motivation and your replies to points I didn't make do put me off.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    10. Re:Economic Dogmas by binkzz · · Score: 1

      I have to say I've never been to America, but the idea I get is that Americans (generally) see everything very black and white.

      In my church, everyone is welcomed, even if you're not religious. If you live to the standards from the Bible, I say you live a good life. But unfortunately a lot of Christians don't pursue that way of living.

      With pink goggles, I think we all should get along and tolerate each-other, even and/or especially when the other doesn't tolerate us.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    11. Re:Economic Dogmas by copponex · · Score: 1

      You make some interesting points, but your prematurely drawn conclusions about me and my motivation and your replies to points I didn't make do put me off.

      The Bible and science are not mutually exclusive.

      I don't think my guesses were misplaced. And unfortunately, unless you interpret the bible entirely as allegory, it is totally incompatible with science. Ideas that are faith based cannot be scientific, because they cannot be falsified. And believing that water can be turned into wine or that you can take two fish and five loaves of bread and feed 5000 people are ideas that would be ridiculed if they were not part of the Bible, because without any further information, everyone's experience informs them that it is impossible.

    12. Re:Economic Dogmas by binkzz · · Score: 1

      I don't think my guesses were misplaced.

      I find that a bit arrogant, and disrespectful. I can also tell you your guesses were incorrect.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    13. Re:Economic Dogmas by copponex · · Score: 1

      So, assuming you're not a Christian, why are you offended?

      If you are a Christian, and you claim to know the mind and will of God, who is being arrogant?

    14. Re:Economic Dogmas by binkzz · · Score: 1

      Heya, I am indeed a Christian.

      I never claimed to know the mind of God - is this another one of your guesses? His will He wrote in a book for me, so I could read it and know.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    15. Re:Economic Dogmas by copponex · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but this is a matter of fact and not opinion.

      You haven't studied every religion that has ever existed - this would be impossible. So you cannot have come up with some empirical way to arrive at the Bible as your answer, and I'm doubtful if you've even examined the many variations of the bible that have been claimed as the word of God for the last two thousand years. Your faith in Jesus has no rational basis to be held above the faith in Ra or Baal or Mohammed or the Great Spirit or Shiva or tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of other imagined supernatural beings.

      You claim to have found the book, out of tens of thousands of holy texts, that reveals the mind of God, based on your opinion on what the mind of God is. This is a fantastic claim, supported only by hearsay and conjecture, which is an untenable position at best. Every argument you can possibly make can also be made for a number of other religions. Christianity has no unique qualities apart from any other mystical belief system, so regardless of what you claim, you are in the same boat with other cults, large and small, that have come and gone throughout our human history.

      Your personal, anecdotal experience, untouchable by hypothesis or repeatable and verifiable experiment, is the only thing you have. Therefore, it has no connection to science, and must be forever separated from it.

    16. Re:Economic Dogmas by binkzz · · Score: 1

      Hey again.

      You don't read my posts. You make up things that I'm supposed to have said and then question those. Not one of the points you made are things I asserted, not one.

      As you could probably already have told, I wasn't very interested to get into a debate from the start, and as you're likely just putting out general frustration rather than being constructive, this is unlikely to go anywhere.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
  22. Turing test? No problem.... by Cur8or · · Score: 0

    This is an unprecedented marketing opportunity and I think it is working!

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
  23. Virtual Labor by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    This has parallels with the main premise of Sleep Dealer http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804529/

    A theme in the film is Virtual Labor - robots of the future will really be remotely operated by cheap overseas labor. SpinVox is doing similar kind of things, but unlike Mechanical Turk has the factore of outsourcing to the low-wage regions.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  24. What about Google Voice transciption? by kriston · · Score: 1

    What about Google Voice transciption? It seems to do such a good job I always suspected it was Google's private version of Amazon Mechanical Turk.

    --

    Kriston

  25. surprise! by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

    No way, a service that was not what it seemed, nor as secure? How could this happen in Europe of all places?

    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
  26. Are image ATMs automatic? by Animats · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering about "image ATMs", which accept checks for deposit, imaging them. I've had one correctly accept a check with the amount handwritten in cursive. I suspect that at least the hard cases are being referred to humans for recognition.

  27. Vista file copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Vista file copy is O(w^2) where w is the amount of time a normal person is willing to wait for a file to copy.

  28. Artificial intelligence? Hah! by Spy+Handler · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Even after decades of Moore's Law advances, computers still can't even convert speech to text with any kind of reliability. Artificial intelligence capable of passing the Turing test? Please.

    Speech recognition is just so trivial a thing compared to human-level AI, it's like the difference between learning to walk and flying to the moon. And we still can't even walk properly without falling down all over the place yet.

    I can guarantee real AI will never be achieved in my lifetime. And quite possibly not in anybody's liftetime.

  29. Official response by quentez · · Score: 3, Informative

    There was an official response to those accusations : http://blog.spinvox.com/ It's quite interesting.

  30. South African and English by Builder · · Score: 1

    You guys do know that many, many South African's speak English as their first language, right ?

    Most South Africans I know speak better English with fewer weird accents than the UK population. I've never had to try and understand what is meant by 'Arwight mate, innit' while talking to a saffa :)

  31. change is good by speedtux · · Score: 1

    Canada kept the rules. The Canadian banking system is still the most sound.

    Think about what does a "sound banking system" actually means. It means that old money stays that way. It means that generation after generation, the same banks gain more and more power and get to call more and more of the agenda. Stable banking systems are good for people who are already wealthy and powerful. Wiping out unwisely invested wealth punishes the greedy and gives the have-nots a new opportunity.

    But leave it to the same fuckers from Harvard, who apparently can't even manage a college trust [vanityfair.com] without running it into the ground.

    They had a spectacular run for a decade and now they are making room for some other university to take the top spot. I think that's good. Why should Harvard remain the wealthiest and most powerful university in perpetuity? What would be so good about a system in which, once you accumulate wealth, you, your family, or your organization just keeps it forever?

    Change and shaking things up are good. We need financial crises and recessions if we don't want stagnate or accumulate a de-facto nobility.

    What society can do is make sure that nobody starves when everything comes crashing down, and we have mostly done that in the US.

    1. Re:change is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should start shaking up the wealthy and make them poor. That will teach them. It worked wonders for the Soviets.

      You can have a chance at making it big, if you are poor, if you learn to stop disposing of your money by buying excessive amounts of consumable goods.

    2. Re:change is good by copponex · · Score: 1

      Think about what does a "sound banking system" actually means. It means that old money stays that way. It means that generation after generation, the same banks gain more and more power and get to call more and more of the agenda. Stable banking systems are good for people who are already wealthy and powerful. Wiping out unwisely invested wealth punishes the greedy and gives the have-nots a new opportunity.

      Booms and busts always benefit the wealthy. When the booms come, they are making money hand over fist. When the bust arrives, they pick up competitors and assets for pennies on the dollar.

      They had a spectacular run for a decade

      Give me a few billion dollars, and I can make money. It's easy. In an economic boom it's even easier, and anyone with cash invested will usually see a huge gain.

      Why should Harvard remain the wealthiest and most powerful university in perpetuity? What would be so good about a system in which, once you accumulate wealth, you, your family, or your organization just keeps it forever?

      I'm all for death and estate taxes. The problem is the guys who can't even manage a college trust keep telling us to let them do whatever they want without oversight in our financial markets. People are afraid that if taxed enough, these are the people who will leave the country. I say, jack up their taxes, and if they leave, we still win.

      Change and shaking things up are good. We need financial crises and recessions if we don't want stagnate or accumulate a de-facto nobility.

      Again, you operate under the assumption that inflation and busts are bad for the wealthy. Look at the middle class after the Great Depression up until 1980, before Reaganomics. A thriving, well paid, blue and white collar middle class that only needed one spouse to work and could still send their kids to college. Now look at all of the bank panics since 1980, and what's happened to the middle class? What's happened to the top 3%? The numbers are plain enough.

    3. Re:change is good by notseamus · · Score: 1

      Is this a joke?

      Today's rich will still be tomorrow's rich, and are probably the best equipped to ride out the recessions.

      Today's banks are going to be tomorrow's banks, or if not, will have been bought up by larger banks, see Santander.

      The logic you've used is like saying that fires are good, because they mean new houses will have to be built.

      --
      I dreamed of Freud: What does this mean?
    4. Re:change is good by speedtux · · Score: 1

      The logic you've used is like saying that fires are good, because they mean new houses will have to be built.

      It's more like saying that wildfires are good because the forest renews itself. And they are.

  32. I totally called this. by Sophira · · Score: 1

    I totally called this, back in 2007, when LiveJournal started to use SpinVox's services.

    I was suspicious at the time, and started to look for information. What I found made me absolutely sure that at least part of it wasn't actually as automated as it was made out to be, and in fact, gave me the distinct feeling that it was mostly manually done by humans.

    I started to write an article on the subject that I was going to publish in the LJ community "no_lj_ads". Being a Support volunteer, I had access to the feature before it was released for general use, and I was able to make some observations. However, although I made good progress on the article, it was never finished. There were lots of points to make, and it wasn't long after that that LiveJournal was the subject of a controversy known as "Strikethrough". The article got buried on my computer and forgotten about, half-finished.

    In 2008, I dug up the article again, completed it using notes that I had left, and reposted it to my LiveJournal. I'll reproduce it here, too, because I think people will be interested.

    Remember, this article was originally made in 2007. Because of that, some of the links are now defunct. The article has been slightly edited in places in order to note where this is the case; these edits will be noted [2008: Like this!] or [2009: Like this!], depending on whether I noticed it in my 2008 reposting, or in this 2009 reposting.

    On to the article!

    The Problem of Logistics
    First, let me address the obvious problem of logistics. Yes, logistics are a big problem. LiveJournal has tons of users, to put it mildly, and SpinVox already has quite a lot of clients, I believe. If SpinVox weren't fully automated, how could they solve this problem? Is SpinVox some sort of sweatshop?

    To tell the truth - I don't know how SpinVox solve that. It seems like for that reason alone SpinVox would be an automated system, and I'll be the first to admit that it's a good question that deserves an answer, and a good reason to believe it's automated. On the other hand, though, I believe I have evidence that shows pretty strongly that all is not automated. I'll be covering that evidence here.

    The Evidence
    Well, let's get started with some obvious points. The first thing to do is to look at some random people's journals and check out the quality of the transcription for yourself, so go check out the post in paidmembers and click to some random commenters' journals. Chances are, most of them will probably have made a voice post by now to test the system, and auto-transcription only occurs on public entries, so you have a good chance of finding some. Heck, some commenters link to their posts for you. Go check them out. I'll be here when you get back. (If you want, you can also try this Google Blog Search search for recent voicepoists too, but not all of them will be from paid members, and Google doesn't pick up all of them.)

    Okay, you're back? Cool. You've probably noticed that the quality of the transcriptions is really pretty good, but obviously it still makes mistakes. That's okay - it's to be expected, from an automated system, right? And yes, it *is* to be expected. No automated system is perfect. Mistakes will always be made. I encourage you to bear this in mind and be skeptical about what I have to say. Analyse it for yourself; don't let me brainwash you. Be skeptical, it's healthy for you.

    Pros
    Having said that, however, SpinVox is still very awesome, if we consider it to be automated:

    1. It understands a wide variety of accents.
    2. It understands when you speak quickly.
    3. It works over the phone.
    4. It doesn't mind background noise, or quiet voices.
    5. It knows when and how to

  33. made me laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My brother uses Spinvox and I have always taken great pleasure in leaving message designed to mess with the speech rec. Things like adding in random words in the middle, leaving a message consisting solely of the car registration plates I could read walking down the street... that sort of thing. Even funnier to think some poor sole probably had to transcribe these things.... :)

    That said, I would assume that the transcriptions are probably going towards the data for the language model. If you don't collect relevant data you can't do the recognition. Presumably the plan is to reduce the proportion of transcribed messages over time. Of course, they should be splitting the messages up into sections for transcription so no single transcriber gets the whole of a message. As long as you split them at silent points that should be OK.

  34. It was obvious by arethuza · · Score: 1

    I've used SpinVox for years at it was pretty obvious to me that it was a person doing the work - it was far too good. Friends went through a stage of sending increasingly bizarre messages to see if I would get something sensible and I generally did.

  35. 5G by brendan_orr · · Score: 1

    "...they're 'enabling the Speech 3.0, Voice 3.0, and Business 3.0 markets,' whatever that means."

    So is that like 5G or something?


    Bah, marketing buzz words...

  36. Borat by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

    Say what you will about that movie, but one scene struck me: Borat sleeps on the ground outside one of those born-again megachurches, and a crowd arrives for a Sunday service. Instead of trying to help him, churchgoers just step over Borat and try to ignore him on their way to the service. If that isn't the antithesis of every teaching of Jesus in the New Testament, I don't know what is.

  37. Speech To Text - powerful English speech recogniti by Howkent · · Score: 1

    A useful English speech recognition software 'Wave To Text v5.2'. Help you convert your voice to text in real-time, while the program's wizard enables you to convert your Windows Audio WAV files (speech recorded) offline. http://www.111download.com/product/wave-to-text-v.html

  38. Cheaper labour by textureglitch · · Score: 1

    they're 'enabling the Speech 3.0, Voice 3.0, and Business 3.0 markets,' whatever that means."

    It obviously means they're outsourcing all the work to 3.0rd world countries.

    --
    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. -Isaac Asimov