Judging by my everyday interactions, a 6% error rate is lower than human error rates in casual conversation.
People regularly ask each other, "sorry, what did you say?", "wait, what did she say?", "would you repeat that please?", "huh?", etc.
People regularly ask each other, "sorry, what did you say?", "wait, what did she say?", "would you repeat that please?", "huh?", etc.
Contrast this with speech recognition, which will often substitute words that are nonsensical in context, making it look silly from a human perspective...
I think the chinese room experiment overlooks this part of "understanding"
Seems like a good approach.
Or that is my observation, anyway. I don't use it myself.
Understanding rate is less than 10%. If you don't match a keyword it gives a useless web search.
Personally I don't think understanding rate is the whole issue as much as reaction to error (which is partly understanding). You can't say "no that's not what I said" and Siri et al never keep enough context to say "huh? What did you say? Or "I didn't get that last part. can you repeat it?"
It's that errors in understanding or accuracy turn the whole thing into a complete shitshow.
One failure and you might as well pull over and type what you want.
They can cancel out reverb and create very fine tuned waveform profiles for speech.
I think one of the reasons that Siri is slightly better at SR than google is because of the control that Apple has over the hardware.
While Cortana turns sourpuss on me every time I switch headsets.
It's better to avoid throwing around numbers like that but even if that was the case you have to remember that humans understand speech. The speech recognition task performed by AI systems on the other hand is more akin to transliteration: the system takes in sound as input and produces text as output. Any sort of "understanding" a) is extremly difficult to do well and b) must be performed by a different component of the system (a different algorithm, trained on different data).
For humans, isn't this a due to a combination of factors than just comprehension alone? Humans who ask, "sorry, what did you say?" or "would you repeat that please?" or even just a "huh?" usually aren't paying attention at all. It's not a comprehension or sound quality or surrounding noise problem for many, except in situations where the person is not fluent in a particular language or dialect or accent or if the surrounding noise vs. the person's hearing ability aren't conducive to listening properly.
Most people also usually tend to think about judging what the other is saying and constructing a counter-point during the process of listening that impairs the ability to listen and understand well.
On the other hand, a computer could expected to be, and made to be, paying attention a lot better in a predictable way, which is not possible with humans.
With the other comment reply above stating people's expectations with humans vs. computers, shouldn't we also consider the computer's strengths while making comparisons with humans?