| ▲ | jazzyjackson 6 hours ago |
| Thinking about that time Berkeley delisted thousands of recordings of course content as a result of a lawsuit complaining that they could not be utilized by deaf individuals. Can this be resolved with current technology? Google's auto captioning has been abysmal up to this point, I've often wondered what the cost would be for google to run modern tech over the entire backlog of youtube. At least then they might have a new source of training data. https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/24/faq-on-legacy-public-co... Discussed at the time (2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856 |
|
| ▲ | hackernewds an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| What a silly requirement? Since 1% cannot benefit, let's remove it for the 99% |
|
| ▲ | andai 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Didn't YouTube have auto-captions at the time this was discussed? Yeah they're a bit dodgy but I often watch videos in public with sound muted and 90% of the time you can guess what word it was meant to be from context. (And indeed more recent models do way, way, way better on accuracy.) |
| |
| ▲ | zehaeva 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have a few Deaf/Hard of Hearing friends who find the auto-captions to be basically useless. Anything that's even remotely domain specific becomes a garbled mess. Even watching documentaries about light engineering/archeology/history subjects are hilariously bad. Names of historical places and people are randomly correct and almost always never consistent. The second anyone has a bit of an accent then it's completely useless. I keep them on partially because I'm of the "everything needs to have subtitles else I can't hear the words they're saying" cohort. So I can figure out what they really mean, but if you couldn't hear anything I can see it being hugely distracting/distressing/confusing/frustrating. | | |
| ▲ | hunter2_ 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | With this context, it seems as though correction-by-LLM might be a net win among your Deaf/HoH friends even if it would be a net loss for you, since you're able to correct on the fly better than an LLM probably would, while the opposite is more often true for them, due to differences in experience with phonetics? Soundex [0] is a prevailing method of codifying phonetic similarity, but unfortunately it's focused on names exclusively. Any correction-by-LLM really ought to generate substitution probabilities weighted heavily on something like that, I would think. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundex |
| |
| ▲ | jonas21 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, but the DOJ determined that the auto-generated captions were "inaccurate and incomplete, making the content inaccessible to individuals with hearing disabilities." [1] If the automatically-generated captions are now of a similar quality as human-generated ones, then that changes things. [1] https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08... | |
| ▲ | jazzyjackson 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Definitely depends on audio quality and how closely a speaker's dialect matches the mid-atlantic accent, if you catch my drift. IME youtube transcripts are completely devoid of meaningful information, especially when domain-specific vocabulary is used. |
|
|
| ▲ | delusional 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's a legal issue. If humans wanted that content to be up, we just could have agreed to keep it up. Legal issues don't get solved by technology. |
| |
| ▲ | jazzyjackson 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well. The legal complaint was that transcripts don't exist. The issue was that it was prohibitively expensive to resolve the complaint. Now that transcription is 0.1% of the cost it was 8 years ago, maybe the complaint could have been resolved. Is building a ramp to meet ADA requirements not using technology to solve a legal issue? | | |
| ▲ | delusional 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nowhere on the linked page at least does it say that it was due to cost. It would seem more likely to me that it was a question of nobody wanting to bother standing up for the videos. If nobody wants to take the fight, the default judgement becomes to take it down. Building a ramp solves a problem. Pointing at a ramp 5 blocks away 7 years later and asking "doesn't this solve this issue" doesn't. | | |
| ▲ | pests 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yet this feels very harrison bergeron to me. To handicap those with ability so we all can be at the same level. |
|
|
|
