Little details. The second sentence is really bizarre:

> Nous établissons que l'utilisation de données d'un tel nombre et d'une telle diversité est la raison pour laquelle le système est à même de comprendre de nombreux accents...

It doesn't sound natural at all. An idiomatic formulation would be more along the lines of:

Le recours à un corpus [de données] si riche et varié est ce qui permet au système de comprendre de nombreux accents (With 'corpus', 'données' is implied.)

Of course this is just an example, and I'm sure other French speakers could come up with a different wording, but "données d'un tel nombre et d'une telle diversité" sounds really wrong.

This is also weird and convoluted:

> Nous distribuons en tant que logiciel libre le code source pour nos modèles et pour l'inférence, afin que ceux-ci puissent servir comme un point de départ pour construire des applications utiles

It should at least be "le code source DE nos modèles" and "servir DE point de départ", and "en tant que logiciel libre" should placed at the end of the proposition (after 'inférence').

Also, "construire" isn't used for code but for buildings, and "applications utiles" is unusual, because "utiles" (useful) is assumed. "...pour le développement de nouvelles applications" would sound more French.

That's interesting, as a québécois I don't agree with any of this. The only thing that raised an eyebrow was "est à même de", but if turns out it's just another way of saying "capable de", I guess it's simply not a common idiom around here. Aside from that, I found the wording flowed well even if I personally would've phrased it differently.

Mistery solved. It was a quebecois

Gonna have to agree with the other reply, as a french-canadian, except for "servir comme un point de départ" which should be "servir de point de départ", that all sounds perfectly fine.

If this is actually "good" or even acceptable French Canadian, then it's a different language from French (and the blog post should mention it).

I kind of doubt it though -- the speaker doesn't have a Canadian accent (which is hard to miss), and in my (admittedly limited) experience, French Canadian isn't that different from French.

How funny to see that to French people, Quebec french sounds like machine translated english :)

At the start, the "Nous établissons" part, for example. You wouldn't write that if you were starting scratch from French.

That's the first thing that I discovered when I visited Paris for the first time.

No one says "Nous", there, ever. Perhaps the politicians, while giving a speech. Everyone else uses the more informal "On".

I felt duped by my French classes.

Older generations sometimes do. My grandma and her sisters nearly never uses "on".

It is often used for larger groups or when the group is not very personally connected. For instance when talking about your company doing something you will often use "nous". I would also use "nous" to refer to the whole list of invitees to a wedding. And in formal contextes like research papers, reports etc. You would never use "on", always "nous".

You can see from the transcript where the model made some errors, for example:

> We distribute as a free software the source code for our models and for the inference [...]

Should be

> We are open-sourcing models and inference code [...]

Another example

> We establish that the use of such a number of data is such a diversity and the reason why our system is able [...]

Should be

> We show that the use of such a large and diverse dataset leads to improved robustness [...]