The Future of Speech Technologies 101
prostoalex writes "PC Magazine is running an interview with two of the research leaders in IBM's speech recognition group, Dr. David Nahamoo, manager of Human Language Technologies, and Dr. Roberto Sicconi, manager of Multimodal Conversational Solutions. They mainly discuss the status quo of speech technologies, which prototypes exist in IBM Labs today, and where the industry is headed." From the article: "There has to be a good reason to use speech, maybe you're hands are full [like in the case of driving a car]. ... Speech has to be important enough to justify the adoption. I'd like to go back to one of your original questions. You were saying, 'What's wrong with speech recognition today?' One of the things I see missing is feedback. In most cases, conversations are one-way. When you talk to a device, it's like talking to a 1 or 2 year old child. He can't tell you what's wrong, and you just wait for the time when he can tell you what he wants or what he needs."
its been a while (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm looking forward to when I can say "computer, open openoffice for me mate" and it'll go "sure"... That'll be sweet.
Re:integration (Score:4, Insightful)
Dragon Naturally Speaking is a baby step in that direction, but it is pretty much limited to single nouns or verbs.
It's not the tech, it's the applications once more (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is so terribly ineffient and cumbersome. You really don't want to spend the time to socially interact with your coffeemachine at 7am.
Unless it's able to go to the shop, put in exactly the right amount of coffee and is able to turn itself to on once it hears you stumbling out of bed. It's next to useless if the only added value is to switch itself to on after you grunted "on" to it.
Re:Speech is the future! (Score:2, Insightful)
Speech recognition is for people who are alone (Score:2, Insightful)
Tom.
Re:IBM Speech - Needs Superhuman sales to survive? (Score:2, Insightful)
It just seems like IBM, seemly a company obsessed with creating and preserving intellectual capital, wouldn't so hastily sell off patents that they might ever be able to use / need, unless there was a catch, like they got access to Scansoft's portfolio as part of the bargain?
Just speculation, based on what I've read about how Big Blue operates.