Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (66745)	10/15/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: Dave Swanson	Respond to of 186894

What would you think regarding, for instance, a carphone that either dialled a number that you spoke to it, so people wouldn't endanger themselves pushing buttons while driving? Better yet, if one said "call home" or "call the boss" and the phone did that from memory? How about a device that'll read your Email to you? Or, how about security devices that operated on voice recognition? Speech-to-text software that practically eliminates the need for keyboards?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (66745)	10/15/1998 3:46:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ali -- don't be so dogmatic Language acquisiton studies -- even of Chinese -- show that most language learners use phonetic strategies more often than visual strategies in learning language -- thus the success of phonics rather than look-say or whole language in learning to read. I think the preferred view is that writing and printing, as grand as they are, really interfere with communication by interrupting the speaker => hearer channel with complications (e.g. speaker => text => reader => hearer.) Even when remote speaker and hearer are masters of the same spoken language they may not now communicate unless they are also masters of the common written language. Voice input to computers allow the processing of the input into other languages (like the mathematics example). I think it is possible that with ten years of software and hardware processors we will speak into our wearable intelligent phones to anyone or anything which will quickly train (seconds) to understand us and answer back.

To: Ali Chen who wrote (66745)	10/15/1998 6:03:00 PM
From: stak	Respond to of 186894

Ali,>> <Voice recognition...> is utter nonsense in computing. << Too comical!!! Just because the interface isn't fine tuned yet doesn't mean that it won't be very usable in the future (next few years). But I agree wholeheartedly,at the present moment it is utter nonsense for almost everyone. >>People have invented paper and pencil to enhance their abilities to communicate ideas, commands, and information with higher precision than the voice can<< I agree somewhat. To communicate with the masses, written form is the preferred way to go , but in the everyday world no one whips out the pencil and pad and scribbles something down to get their idea across. Voice is the intuitive way of communicating for people. I don't see this changing in the future at any time. PC stands for personal computer. The PC has had problems penetrating the general population in a way that, say the telephone, VCR, radio or cell phone has. Part of the problem is the interface, GUI (keyboard and mouse) is not as personal or as simple the other products. PC makers need to address this situation in order to make PCs ubiquitous. I believe my favorite "Aptiva" will be one of the first or best to overcome this challenge. IBM has a long history in the voice field. O/S Warp 4.0 was a gutsy move and a good learning experience . Soon this expertise will become a valuable commodity for them. >> The speech is inherently fuzzy and imprecise.<< And yet people understand you. >>Voice interface capability has no advantage in most area of computing, excluding few very special and rare applications. Only disadvantages. << I don't agree. Could you explain the many disadvantages? Also what are the very special and very rare circumstances, in your opinion? >>As someone on this thread already realized (Tony? Fred?) that it is a nonsense when everybody will start talking in their cubicles...<< Umm, but you've heard of the telephone no doubt. >>Make no mistake, there will be no "killer" applications in this area.<< Betcha a mocha there'll be tons. >> two years their "voice commander" or whatever. It even works, and works correctly. However every user eventually stop using it after a few days of playing with it.<< I tried out a few different voice apps a few years ago too. I found Verbex to be the best for 486 PCs. I agree with everyone else (I stopped using them). But times change and they are past that point of development. Intel has made voice viable and relevant due to the improvements in computing speed in the past year. BTW, I don't mean to leave out IBM's, Dragon's and Lerner and Hausie's contributions. >>P.S. Please also do not confuse "voice" recognition with "speech" recognition... << Very good point Ali, could you explain that one for us. FWIW, Many times we learn the most from people who have different points of view from our own. This challenge to our comfort zone isn't pleasant often. It is very difficult to break out of "schemas". --A schema is an extremely stable and enduring pattern that develops during childhood and is elaborated throughout an individual's life. We view the world thru our schemas. Schemas are important beliefs and feelings about oneself and the environment which the individual accepts without question. They are self-perpetuating, and are very resistant to change.-- In essence, although this is a very simple explanation,>>Breaking schemas is the holy grail of marketing new products! << Ali Thank U! stak my rating on "Voice" as it stands today. One raised eyebrow! equiv to one thumb up. a thread for voice in computing. Subject 23295