So I infer that these data sets are some deliberately difficult audio: call centre recordings with lots of background noise, phoneline quality audio etc. Maybe non-native speakers. If I only heard that sort of audio once I also might have an error rate of 10%.
I assume therefore that the 10% word error rate is on very difficult audio such as pilots speaking to Air Traffic Control (distorted or clipped microphones with significant background noise), which I personally find can be difficult to 100% understand even though I'm a native English speaker and when both pilots and air traffic control are native English speakers.
I built a tool in the mid-201Xs on an ASR engine with 20%+ WER, and even that was good enough for what we were trying to do.
From the paper, for short-form audio:
> the distil-large-v2 model achieves the lowest overall average WER of 10.1%. It is one percentage point higher than the large-v2 baseline, with 5.8 times faster inference speed and fewer than half the parameters.
Long-form is similar, except Distil-Whisper does slightly better than Whisper (fewer hallucinations, apparently).
10% WER seems awfully high, and doesn't match my experience with Whisper. Maybe my audio is nice and clean relative to their test set?