Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wants Your Voice Data

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the and-your-soul dept.

00_NOP writes "Peter Norvig, Google's director of research, has told New Scientist that one of the reasons the search engine launched Google Voice is that it needs more human voice data to perfect the sort of 'big data, simple algorithm' probabilistic approach to translating voices to text that drives Google Translate. Norvig says that no one is listening to your calls on Google Voice — it is simply their servers trying to get the translation right."

99 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Um, how by C_Kode · · Score: 2

    I will say that the translation of my voice mails is terrible. Although, how can you tell if it is translated correctly if you don't listen to it? You can look for proper English, but even some of my translations are proper English yet still incorrect. (names, etc come out wrong.) Though most of the time it it's just a jumbled mess that I can't deduce the actual meaning of.

    1. Re:Um, how by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Your voicemails/transcriptions have a button you can check to mark whether or not it was accurate. Presumably, that is what they mean. Nobody besides *you* listens to them. On the other hand, if that is somehow not the case . . . . then . . . fuck no.

    2. Re:Um, how by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2

      There is a checkmark and an X you can click if the translation is good/bad.

    3. Re:Um, how by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      Although, how can you tell if it is translated correctly if you don't listen to it?

      They don't listen in, at least not initially. You do. If it's not translated correctly, there's a box for you to check that gives them permission to listen.

    4. Re:Um, how by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      My experience with a Nexus One...

      If I used voice transcribing for to the phone directly: as in I spoke to my phone to do a google search or write a text, it came out fairly well. There was the occasional error but mostly on things like names.

      But my transcripts from the voice mails I receive were often trash.

      I guess it has to do with the sound-quality: it probably uses the original high-quality recording locally so it performs good Google searches. Meanwhile the compression and static over the phone line (and the voice mail recording) are probably harder to transcribe.

    5. Re:Um, how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should just get over the fact that privacy is gone, eh? Not here, my friend. Not ever. People have a RIGHT to privacy despite what anyone will tell you.

      The fact that the majority of people could give a hoot in hell about their personal and our collective privacy will come back to haunt us. I don't understand why people would willingly give up their privacy for a little functionality, cool tech, gadgets, whatever. I value my privacy and I don't share my info willingly with anyone or any organization without a lawful requirement, e.g. SSN for employers, banks. I even fought my medical insurance company on getting my SSN because they have no legal mandate to possess that information.

      I will not have grocery store cards to save money for the same reasons. I will not trade my personal information for a little savings.

      These companies take our information from us and profit greatly while we in turn get what? A "free" email account laden with ads that track our behavior? This is not a win-win situation and no one really cares, because they can chat with their friends across the globe in real time, make "friends" on Facebook they will never meet or really know.

      Where does all this end? When the entire world is one transparent collective society where no one has any privacy whatsoever? Personal information is a goldmine as is shown by how desperately companies want to get their hands on it. I think there should be a citizens' clearinghouse where people can agree to sell their info for a profit -- opt-in by default. Anyone caught trying to get around this clearinghouse pays dearly legally. Companies bid for your personal information and you profit as well. Anything short of some model like this is completely lopsided in favor of corporate interests that don't have our best interests at heart.

    6. Re:Um, how by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2

      They've gotten some pretty good data from me. My Google Voice number isn't currently published, so all of the voicemails I get are wrong numbers (or tests). They are completely incomprehensible to me, and to Google Voice - although one did a fair approximation of jibberish English (I think it was in some African dialect). Most seem to be in African languages, although a few are central European sounding. Good luck getting a good translation - but that's the magic that Google is trying to accomplish: translate some spoken language without any foreknowledge. Kind of like Google Goggles only for voice. So I volunteer all of these for their translation database.

      Oh, and I do get a fair number of advertizements and service calls. If you had an appointment with Comcast last Thursday, the tech called the wrong number - that's why he didn't show up. Google did a good job on the translation though...

    7. Re:Um, how by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      I've had the same experience, my voicemail transcripts are garbage.

      When I speak into my phone to write a text or run a search I make a point to speak slowly and enunciate very clearly. I suspect most people don't make the same kind of effort in voicemails.

    8. Re:Um, how by thePig · · Score: 2

      In that case, they can use Youtube videos for this, right? Their automatic translation is quite horrible - they could use the good/bad check there too.
      Actually they can translate the same videos everytime people sees it - and until quite a high percentage of people say yes, they can test it again.
      Also, when they have more than 200 Million videos in youtube, why do they need to store data from Google Voice - which is much more personal and important.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    9. Re:Um, how by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If the message doesn't require a double check there's no reason for them to store it as they don't have any way of knowing whether or not it was accurate. However, for ones that they do have to go back and analyze, there's a good reason why they'd want to store them. In a word regressions. Without a body of samples which were tough, they don't have any way of gauging whether or not they're truly making progress as improvements could just as easily be in the quality of the samples that they are trying to transcribe.

    10. Re:Um, how by aztracker1 · · Score: 2

      What's funny is this is the case for everyone but both of my grandmothers... either one of them leave a voicemail, and it transcribes > 95% accurate, better than anyone else (30-60% usually). I guess it works well for old women raised in the U.S. midwest.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    11. Re:Um, how by heypete · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I do get a fair number of advertizements and service calls. If you had an appointment with Comcast last Thursday, the tech called the wrong number - that's why he didn't show up. Google did a good job on the translation though...

      I have similar experiences, only with email instead of voicemail.

      This confuses me as I've owned my own domain for just under 12 years (and was the original registrant), and am the only recipient at the entire domain. It's my personal address and a few generic role accounts (postmaster@, abuse@, etc.) that forward to my personal account. There is no reason why someone named "Diane" should use my email address (pete@[my slashdot username].com) when scheduling an Apple Store appointment in South Carolina (not a state where I've ever lived).

      Yet, oddly enough, it happened on April 11th of this year. Go figure.

    12. Re:Um, how by darkshadow88 · · Score: 1

      That is absolutely correct. Speech recognition is incredibly sensitive to sound quality and background noise. When you're talking into your phone, the ASR software has a very good quality sample to work with. On the phone line, however, you're dealing with a very noisy signal, which causes huge degradations in the quality of recognition.

    13. Re:Um, how by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      In the end, do I really care who listens to my conversations? No, they can listen to all the phone sex if they want.

      They aren't listening to your conversations. They are listening to your voicemail if you send it to them. And if someone were to have phone sex with my voicemail, whether I sent it to them would depend upon who was calling.

      --
      Support SETI@home
    14. Re:Um, how by davester666 · · Score: 2

      No"BODY" is listening, but computers are analyzing every call and transcribing it to text?

      Hmm, I would guess there would need to be at least some spot-checks that the transcription is working properly.

      And isn't there some kind of federal wiretapping law preventing this or is it a "well, we told you we were listening in on every call"?

      And methinks it just might be easier for the gov't to get these transcriptions instead of the actual audio recordings. And more convenient to, because it's much faster to read/search them instead of listening to hours and hours of audio.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:Um, how by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You assume that privacy has value. What value really is there to it? There are a few good examples, but none of them apply to the current scenario, or even the sharing of email addresses. And before you reply "Because", think about the value judgment that you're making. What exactly is it that makes privacy as valuable a concept as, say, equality or liberty?

      Finally, a free email system of the quality of gmail is worth a lot to me. Google can have the privacy that they're asking for it. One thing is sure though: as much as I'm ok to trade my privacy for a free email account like gmail, they better ask me for it. Switch-and-baits and fine print or outright lying is grounds for immediate blackballing of the company.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    16. Re:Um, how by RanCossack · · Score: 1

      No"BODY" is listening, but computers are analyzing every call and transcribing it to text?

      Hmm, I would guess there would need to be at least some spot-checks that the transcription is working properly.

      You do, when you click the check-mark or the red X after listening to it. However, that is a good point -- here Google says nobody will listen to your voicemail, but they still let you listen to it. So much for don't be evil! (This is sarcasm.)

      As for other people getting ahold of the transcriptions... not to be too facetious, but given how bad the quality currently is, nobody should worry about that yet. ;)

    17. Re:Um, how by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Maybe they use a land line. I've noticed my friends who use land lines (small sample size) have high accuracy rates relative to average.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    18. Re:Um, how by yakatz · · Score: 1

      Your voicemails/transcriptions have a button you can check to mark whether or not it was accurate.

      And once you click that button, you have the option to donate your message so they can use it to improve their software. Example: http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/242/unled90.png

    19. Re:Um, how by yakatz · · Score: 1

      And if you hit "Yes" saying the translation was effective Google allows you to submit the voicemail to them for someone to listen to. I submit all of my not-important voicemails to them.

    20. Re:Um, how by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I would guess there would need to be at least some spot-checks that the transcription is working properly.

      The only time somebody at Google listens (well, is allowed to listen) to your voicemail or recordings is when you click the red X and consent to their review.

    21. Re:Um, how by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Well, wouldn't it be worse if the transcription was wrong and the SWAT team comes to your house because they think you are making a bomb instead of just noting that the movie bombed...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Self-checking by rwv · · Score: 2

    How do servers assess whether they've got the translation correct without having a human-in-the-loop to listen to the conversation and concurrently read what the server translated? Maybe the data is anonymous by the time it gets to a human, but it seems like humans need to interface with the voice data somehow to validate that the server is translating accurately.

    1. Re:Self-checking by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative
      "How do servers assess whether they've got the translation correct without having a human-in-the-loop to listen to the conversation and concurrently read what the server translated?"

      If you log into your Google Voice page, and look at a translated message, in the lower right corner there is the question - "Transcript useful?" along with yes/no checkboxes. If you check one, it asks if you want to "donate" that VM to improve the translations, you can answer yes/no/never:

      Want to help Google's automated transcription get better? Donated voicemails will be listened to, manually transcribed, and used to improve our transcribing server's accuracy. They are only used for this purpose.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Self-checking by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      You are the human in the loop. If you read the VM from the website you have an option to submit the recording if the translation wasn't helpful.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    3. Re:Self-checking by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It's too bad they don't let you fix the transcription. Even if they're worried about people trying to poison their data (like people talk about with ReCaptcha), they could at least the user fix his own view of it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Self-checking by gnapster · · Score: 1

      Or they could just give it a once-over to make sure it's okay. I mean, someone is already taking the time to listen to the voicemail and re-transcribe it manually. It would take less time to verify that the user-generated transcription is correct.

    5. Re:Self-checking by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why they don't let me correct it myself.. Not only would I be helping them with their algorithm, but then I would have a known good transcript to save in my voicemail for later searching.. (Searching is pretty bad if your looking for a word or phrase that is often mis-interpreted).

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    6. Re:Self-checking by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why they don't let me correct it myself.. Not only would I be helping them with their algorithm, but then I would have a known good transcript to save in my voicemail for later searching.. (Searching is pretty bad if your looking for a word or phrase that is often mis-interpreted).

      I suspect the fear of trolls mistranslating is too great to allow anyone to do it.

      Imagine some people "helping" the algorithm by insisting that if someone says, say, "music" it actually "translates" to "we're no strangers to love".

  3. nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >simply their servers trying to the translation right
    >trying to the translation right
    >the translation right

    Nicely done.

    1. Re:nice by alostpacket · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently they're already on par with your average Slashdot editor.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    2. Re:nice by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      Think of the translations, man... they have rights.

    3. Re:nice by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Apparently they're already on par with your average Slashdot editor.

      Google voiceover: Gentlemen, we can rebuild CmdrTaco. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic slashdot editor. CmdrTaco will be that editor. Better than he was. Better... stronger... faster.

  4. servers trying to the translation by foma84 · · Score: 2

    oh shit! Google accidentally my voice data!

    1. Re:servers trying to the translation by m0rphin3 · · Score: 2

      Once, I accidentally my voice data, but then the Google server so it was OK.

      --
      for great justice
    2. Re:servers trying to the translation by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      I what you did there.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  5. They Make it Hard to Delete History by Quantum_Infinity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can tell that they want the voice data badly. They make it very difficult to delete call and voicemail history. You can't delete more than 10 records at a time and even then they go into trash and keep piling up over there. You can delete the data from trash but again only 10 at a time. There is no option to empty the trash. Their help section says that the history is purged from trash after 30 days automatically but only that it isn't. My call history sits in the trash indefinitely unless I painstakingly delete all history 10 records at a time.

    1. Re:They Make it Hard to Delete History by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Good news - after you go through all the painstaking, tedious work of deleting them ten at a time, they're really gone forever!

      *snort* yeah, I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that. Hopefully you couldn't keep one while reading it, either.

    2. Re:They Make it Hard to Delete History by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Sounds like somebody should write a 'droid app to fix that...

  6. Another server by KingSkippus · · Score: 2

    They have another server that checks the first server's translation. Part of their work is checking that server's affectiveness, too.

  7. Is anyone surprised? by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

    This is the price of "free" services.

    1. Re:Is anyone surprised? by afex · · Score: 1

      no, we're not - and I will GLADLY pay this price, if not more. If you are a GV user, then you understand how insanely valuable the service is.

      on the flipside, if you're a privacy advocate (which I absolutely get!), then don't sign up.

      the thing that I don't get is people shouting "i told you so" at all the people that use google services - we get it, we already know they want to mine our data - and we WANT to give it to them!

      *disclaimer: i do not use GV due to the fact that I MMS more than a teenage girl - but I do look at the others that use it with envy : (

    2. Re:Is anyone surprised? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

      We are derisive towards "Hai This is Facebook. Plz give us ur full name, address, cell phone number, age, and eye color so we can give you five Farmville sheep."

      But you bring up the more interesting case, "Awesome service versus abused data". (Shout out to Holland and TomTom for yesterday's example.)

      Or here, Google Translate vs ... a billion hours of juicy phone calls!

      Speech is "Audio" - All we need is a hacker and a Wikileaks Dump!

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    3. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      This is the price of "free" services.

      on the flipside, if you're a privacy advocate (which I absolutely get!), then don't sign up.

      And sometimes you pay the price anyway, without your consent, and when the services aren't "free". Given the (lack of) choice of my data and money going to a company that isn't really innovating that much, or to an entity that's ostensibly trying to move the state of the art forward and using data at least partially to this end, I can't see how a privacy advocate would consider GV worse than their current voice service.

      A "false-sense-of-privacy advocate", perhaps, or one who refuses phone or voicemail service entirely on these grounds.

    4. Re:Is anyone surprised? by gnapster · · Score: 1

      I use a typewriter to hand-transcribe my answering machine messages from cassette tape, you insensitive clod!

  8. I gave up by dargaud · · Score: 3

    I gave up trying to get voice software to work over a decade ago. The reason is that I'm trilingual and use all 3 daily. So the software needs to be able to:
    - understand a lousy accent: there are some words I cannot and will never be able to pronounce 'right'
    - recognize what language is being spoken (having those 3 and only those 3 preset in the options)
    Now I haven't tried Google Voice, but none of the software I've tried or heard about could even remotely do those two basic things.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:I gave up by Thavilden · · Score: 2

      Those two requirements don't exactly strike me as "basic".

    2. Re:I gave up by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Considering that outside of Africa only a very small fraction of the population speaks more than two languages let alone fluently, I don't think that it's a basic request.

    3. Re:I gave up by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Google Voice is pretty amazing, even at the early stages. It can auto-recognize many languages. It can also do a fair job with bad pronunciation. Google translate is able to understand my Spanish - which is fairly incomprehensible. Of course, my vocabulary is limited to that provided by public high schools in rural North Carolina back in 1982. Good luck getting me to do more than ask for directions to the bath room.

      I'll steal a joke from David Sedaris - a single year of high school Spanish just isn't enough to function in society. Trying to borrow a lighter walking around Mexico City I had to go up to people and ask to borrow some fire: podría darme un poco de fuego?

      That didn't really happen - it was Sedaris talking about his adventures in France. But it could have been me. In my case it was rural Mexico on the Yuccatan looking for some Hydrocortisone ointment for the wife (who was getting eaten alive by mosquitoes). You try explaining allergic reaction to a 14 year old Mayan girl manning a pharmacy in rural Mexico while using the vocabulary of a 3 year old.... good luck sounding like anything more than an idiot. I finally had to write down "hydrocortisone ointment, 1%" on a piece of paper. She produced a tube of 2.5% ointment (prescription strength in the US - woot!) and earned my wife's undying gratitude. I can only imagine how easy that transaction would have been with google translate. Heck, if I just knew the words for "skin" and "bite" at the time it would have been really helpful...

    4. Re:I gave up by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Considering that outside of Africa only a very small fraction of the population speaks more than two languages let alone fluently, I don't think that it's a basic request.

      It strikes me that Europe might disagree with you on that.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:I gave up by the_fat_kid · · Score: 2

      I used to work with a "trilingual" fella.
      Born in Itally, raised in France, and then lived in the USA for 17+ years.
      He effectively spoke no language.
      Bad Itallian, worse French and jumbled English.
      is there an app for that?

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    6. Re:I gave up by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I don't know, even in Spain where they have a dozen languages, few people speak three of them (or two + English).

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    7. Re:I gave up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are basic (in the sense that they are a must) for a tool like google voice's.

      To tell apart different languages and guess when a word is a foreign language word.
      I know three languages. Mother language (spanish) second language (english) and some japanese.
      I can still tell when somebody is speaking different languages that I barely know(german, french, chinese, portuguese, italian).

      To put into letters words that it does not have in its vocabulary and no just try and find the closest match

      To understand different accents.

    8. Re:I gave up by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The Malaysians I know do. They all speak a local dialect (their first language), plus they speak Mandarin (the regional language taught for normal communication), plus they speak English (the language they learn to conduct business). They can't really co-mingle the applications, either; they don't know many business terms in their native language so English isn't just an option, it's preferred for those uses.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    9. Re:I gave up by hedwards · · Score: 2

      I could be wrong, but I doubt most Europeans are fluent in more than two languages, and I bet a significant number aren't fluent in multiple languages. The reason I'm singling out Africa there is that in parts it's very common for people to speak not just one or two, but three, four or more languages and to have to learn a new language at marriage so that they can communicate.

      Trust me, Europeans have nothing on that.

    10. Re:I gave up by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      have to learn a new language at marriage so that they can communicate.

      Married people communicate?

    11. Re:I gave up by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Va te faire enculer, pendejo

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    12. Re:I gave up by Abreu · · Score: 2

      I have had "conversations" with people coming back to Mexico after living years in the US... poor fellows, their Spanish is incomprehensible and their English sounds like a racist joke.

      Pochos have really developed their own pidgin language :S

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    13. Re:I gave up by xaxa · · Score: 2

      Considering that outside of Africa only a very small fraction of the population speaks more than two languages let alone fluently, I don't think that it's a basic request.

      40% of EUropeans speak English well enough to have a conversation (not including native speakers). In some areas (Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, places near country borders) it's not unusual to speak an extra language.

      If you're a European child you speak [your version of European], learn English at school because English is useful, and if you like languages you might choose another; in the same way, perhaps, that an American child might choose to learn Spanish.

      I know a little French and a little German -- nowhere near enough to have a proper conversation (I'm still learning) but enough that if I see some French or German text I try and understand it before hitting the "Translate" button. I'm also by far the least multi-lingual in my house, the other three people are fluent in either two, three or four languages.

    14. Re:I gave up by xaxa · · Score: 1

      One of my flatmates speaks four languages fluently. I think her English is at least as good as mine was when I was 16, in some cases better (consistently using "whom", "and I" etc correctly).

      I'm learning German; when I get a little better I want to have German-speaking Sundays (Deutsche sprechen Sonntags?... Wrong conjugation of sprechen, probably the wrong word order, oh well, I've not been learning long.).

    15. Re:I gave up by darkshadow88 · · Score: 1

      "Deutschsprechende" is probably what you're looking for.

    16. Re:I gave up by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      You might have more luck with software that has a training phase before doing recognition. I've had great success with Germans, Chinese and Israelis speaking English through extra training.

      As for the language, I'm not sure about consumer software, but phone systems (and probably Google Voice...details are slim on it) will often run recognizers for several languages and then go with the recognition with the highest confidence.

    17. Re:I gave up by jodio · · Score: 1

      I'm Canadian and I speak 3 languages. English, French, and Rubbish. Mostly Rubbish.

    18. Re:I gave up by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was just thinking that everyone has to learn a new language to communicate after they get married.

    19. Re:I gave up by fritish · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard the Sedaris bit, but in France you can actually ask for "fire" when you want a "light". "Can I get a light?" -> "Tu as du feu?" (I do get your point though.)

      But even ignoring that you can ask for "fire" in France, auto-translators have to realize that you can't word-for-word translate, but also understand that written language is often different than spoken language. Some have started to pick up on this, but they all still have a ways to go.

      --
      "Coffee is for closers."
    20. Re:I gave up by tdknox · · Score: 1

      My fiancee speaks 6 languages fluently, like a native, and switches between them with an ease that impresses the shit out of me. They are Korean (she is Korean), Tagalog, Mandarin Chinese, English, Japanese and French. The first time she came to America, Immigration didn't want to let her in because her English was so good they didn't believe that she had never been here before.

      So, yeah, there are lots of people that speak multiple languages. Just not, unfortunately, in America.

      --
      Did you know that gullible is not in the dictionary?
  9. Maybe it tried to translate the summary by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1
    Maybe google voice tried to translate the summary:

    it is simply their servers trying to the translation right.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:Maybe it tried to translate the summary by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Hey, that would be useful, a service that translates slashdot summaries into English.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Maybe it tried to translate the summary by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      By the time the servers are that powerful, they could run Crysis.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    3. Re:Maybe it tried to translate the summary by berashith · · Score: 1

      no, it would look more like this ...

      innocent lythe airs her versed rhyme to theatre and slay shun, right?

  10. Yeah, you need voice data to get voice to text by sjvn · · Score: 1

    And you're surprised why? All voice apps. do this. Always have, always will, and until it's perfected, and we're a long, long way from perfecting it.

    Steven

  11. Hmmmmm, looking for accuracy are we? by achenaar · · Score: 1

    "it is simply their servers trying to the translation right"
    I think you a word in your sentence.

  12. Doesn't work well... by sglewis100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Peter Norvig, Google's director of research, has told New Scientist that one of the reasons the search engine launched Google Voice is that it needs more human voice data to perfect the sort of 'big data, simple algorithm' probabilistic approach to translating voices to text that drives Google Translate. Norvig says that no one is listening to your calls on Google Voice — it is simply their servers trying to the translation right."

    I think Google Voice translated the last part of that sentence.

  13. Entertaining anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The translation is off pretty far most of the time for my voicemail. But they do end up to be entertaining. Here are two actual translations from google voice:

    1) Okay, I don't know why it takes for ever, for your voicemail to pick up. But anyway, I was just calling to tell you that we forgot to while. I will and I told Mrs. Smith and this is best but she signed about it, so I'm gonna shout in the car and have it for her after I pick her up, bye. You Get Out virtual slot is not with us. So, wish me luck. I don't have to run out over there, bye.

    2) Hey, it's me. Yeah, I would you like. The has the can't seeing tomorrow night and then there's the car was up for a late night should keep talking about it I'm sure wondering if we could let him get the cantinas left for due to Cardiff blues. I thought I'd run it by you and see what you thought, let me know if any a message or something, so I can out and I will talk to you later. Bye.

  14. I is have hamburger? by ook_boo · · Score: 2

    Right. Everyone get on Google Voice with funny unnatural accents, unusual intonation and non-native grammar! Let's skew their data.

    1. Re:I is have hamburger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Epic wonderment! I'm get near to this.

    2. Re:I is have hamburger? by delinear · · Score: 1

      Let's speak MS at it...

      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Oblig. UserFriendly comic by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    There was a Userfriendly.org strip years ago which pretty much summarizes my experience with voice recognition software for the past 15 years. . .

    I can't find the link to the comic anymore, but basically, one of the guys in the office had been trying to use voice recog software. Some of his coworkers come to his office. He's not there, but on the screen, they wonder about the mysterious message, "Cod Am Pizza Ship".

  17. Just found it. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    The Strip.

    1. Re:Just found it. . . by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      The Ubersoft comic ran a Google Voice comic of similar humor today.

      Note: The characters are running from Apple zealots, while working on a special project to prevent Steve Job's ego from destroying everything.

  18. Dang! by PPH · · Score: 1

    Y'all kin have mah voce data. Sheeeit! I warn't doin' nutin' wid it anyhows.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Dang! by PPH · · Score: 1

      Stand by. We've got an incoming call from King George VI.

      Go ahead. Mod me -1 Insensitive Clod.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  19. If we get the heuristics back as FOSS by cyrus0101 · · Score: 2

    I'd be willing to let this happen if google then released the derived heuristics as free open source software. I'll share if you share.

  20. Posting this from google voice by hardaker · · Score: 1

    Google is knot an evil umpire. They our hear 2 us with wheel whirled problems. Please stop bash tag google. All your words belong to us.

    --
    The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
  21. Time for more testing by empty_other · · Score: 1

    So.. They are trying to teach GALaDOS (Google Artificial Lifeform and Disk Operative System) to speak?

  22. Algorithm focused services by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    This is the same as how they put "Closed Captions" on youtube videos.

    Google has no interest in crowd-sourcing the translation or transcription of speech, they want it all automated.

    Which is why YouTube Closed Captions SUCK!

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  23. Re:Google is breaking wiretapping laws everywhere by utkonos · · Score: 1

    In Virginia: "Virginia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. Virginia makes it a crime to intercept or record any "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one party to the conversation consents. Virginia Code 19.2-62. Therefore, if you operate in Virginia, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties." Google is breaking the law because they are not informing both parties of the recording in advance. I'm sure that all this information is buried somewhere in the terms of service that you click "yes" to without reading it. But, unfortunately for google, that does not satisfy informed consent laws. Some states even require consent on a call by call basis, so blanket consent is automatically invalid and illegal.

  24. Re:Google is breaking wiretapping laws everywhere by calderra · · Score: 1

    $2 says your "consent" is buried in the TOS.

  25. Re:Google is breaking wiretapping laws everywhere by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

    Are you sure that signing up for Google Voice doesn't include a clause giving them permission to store the audio? IANAL, but I would also presume that they could successfully claim that it is obvious that a voice mail service must record the audio in order to store and reproduce it later.

    --
    --Udo.
  26. Re:Google is breaking wiretapping laws everywhere by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    It'd be kind of hard to leave a voice mail if you didn't want the receiving party to record it. Implied consent much?

  27. Voluntary by drb226 · · Score: 1

    GV has had an opt-in feature to basically donate each GV transcription to Google with an indicator of whether you thought it was a good or bad transcription. Is there any evidence that Google is delving into your voice data without your consent? Were you expecting a GV transcription *without* a machine at least analyzing the voice data that came in and then discarding it?

  28. YouTube by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Just grab audio from thousands of dialogs or talks on YouTube and test it out.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  29. Re:Google is breaking wiretapping laws everywhere by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do you not understand what voicemail is? How can record a message for someone without consenting to it being recorded?

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  30. Voice OS by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    There will only be one voice operating System. Google wants to get there first.

  31. Re:Google being sneaky here? by darkshadow88 · · Score: 1

    There are many ways to do speech recognition, but one thing they all rely on is training. My guess is that you have a reasonably "average" sounding voice, and therefore the training that was done on other people's voices (specifically, the other users of the app you mention) works well enough for you. For someone with a substantially different sounding voice, it would probably work far worse than Google Voice.

    I should also point out that checkbox or no, the app you're using certainly is training. It may not be telling you that it is, but with every utterance you make, it most likely is. If it's not, then it trained on someone else's speech and you just got lucky that it works. That's how speech recognition works, and if you don't believe me, I can direct you to a number of papers on the topic.

  32. Is voice signature what they really want ? by tchi.keufte · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Google wants to be able to identify people by their voices... I mean in the digital era, where you have pseudonyms, multiple identities, and where portable (micro)phones are proliferating, it would be a mistake not to take advantage of the opportunity to identify or disambiguate people's identity thanks to their voice signature... I'm going to choose my future phone operating systems very carefully...

  33. amazing translation i got yesterday by nathanbeach · · Score: 1

    I love the idea of the feature -- I hate stopping to listen to voice mails. ...but I got the most ludicrous / hilarious translation yesterday. Pure poetry!

    "Hi, My name is The bring the Anderson and I was interested in ordering. I'll call. Sarah, Mrs. Kate, on the Hudson birthday. He really liked all here in the for you. So, anyway, I would see it for next Sunday. I'm not sure where they said of. It's Hey Lady, Thank tonight anyway. If you can just give me a back. My phone number is 972."

    Good to know about the "helpful? / donate" feature (from a comment above), which I did for this one...

  34. Re:Google is breaking wiretapping laws everywhere by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    Sure for the person owning the phone, but that hardly is going to provide consent for the person calling you in states that require 2 party consent.