Imitating people’s speech patterns precisely could bring trouble

Re:Imitating people’s speech patterns precisely could bring ... by Chai-T-Rex on Sunday April 23, 2017 @02:44PM (#14179673)

>The volunteers recognised cloned speech as such only half the time (ie, no better than chance).

That's incorrect. It's like saying that one lottery ticket has a 50% chance of winning. If they're fooling people half the time, that's way better than chance, since there are so many ways of screwing things up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Imitating people’s speech patterns precisely could bring ... by obastani on Sunday April 23, 2017 @02:52PM (#14179723)

I think they are saying the volunteers performed no better than chance, i.e., volunteers are no better at guessing real vs. clone compared to randomly guessing. It's a really good outcome for the clone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Imitating people’s speech patterns precisely could bring ... by jcoffland on Sunday April 23, 2017 @02:54PM (#14179735)

What is "chance"? In the article they mean no better than flipping a coin. You chose a lottery ticket analogy, but that choice was arbitrary.

[ Parent | on HN ]