not necessarily, my kids have citizenship of my home country while daughter never lived there and son only for a year, and for none of them it's their mother tongue
> This class of bug seems to be in the harness, not in the model itself. It’s somehow labelling internal reasoning messages as coming from the user, which is why the model is so confident that “No, you said that.”
from the article.
I don't think the evidence supports this. It's not mislabelling things, it's fabricating things the user said. That's not part of reasoning.
This is great, and I'm not knocking it, but every time I see these apps it reminds me of my phone.
My 2021 Google Pixel 6, when offline, can transcribe speech to text, and also corrects things contextually. it can make a mistake, and as I continue to speak, it will go back and correct something earlier in the sentence. What tech does Google have shoved in there that predates Whisper and Qwen by five years? And why do we now need a 1Gb of transformers to do it on a more powerful platform?
It's the same model used for the WebSpeech API, which can operate entirely offline.
Google mostly funded the training of this model around 10 years ago, and it's quite good.
There are many websites that are simple frontends for this model which is built into Webkit and Blink based browsers. However to my knowledge the model is a blob packed into the apps which is not open source, hence the no Firefox support.
Microsoft OneNote had this back in 2007 or so, granted the speech to text model wasn't nearly as advanced as they are now.
I was actually on the OneNote team when they were transitioning to an online only transcription model because there was no one left to maintain the on device legacy system.
It wasn't any sort of planned technical direction, just a lack of anyone wanting to maintain the old system.
I remember trying out some voice-to-text around 2002 that I believe was included with Windows XP.. or maybe Office?
You had to go through some training exercises to tune it to your voice, but then it worked fairly well for transcription or even interacting with applications.
Any particular reason why you switched? I've been using Gboard for years, especially the text to speech in four languages. In the past few weeks, there was an update where the TTS feature is now in a separate "panel" of the keyboard, and it hardly works at all.
In English and Hebrew it stops after half a dozen words, and those words must be spoken slowly and mechanically for it to work at all. Russian and Arabic are right out - I can't coax any coherent sentence out of it.
I've gone through all permutations of relevant settings, such as "Faster Voice Dictation" (translated from Hebrew,I don't know what the original English option is called). I think there used to be an option for Online or Offline transcription, but that option is gone now.
This is ridiculous - I tried to copy the version information and there is no way to copy it in-app. Let's try the S24 OCR feature...
17.0.10.880768217 release-arm64-v8a
175712590
ראשית (en_GB)
2025090100 = גרסה עדכני
Primary on-device:
No packs
Fallback on-device:
Packs:
ru-RU: 200
I'll try to install the English, Hebrew, and Arabic packs, though I'm certain that I've installed them already.
Interesting. My Pixel 7 transcription is barely usable for me. Makes way too many mistakes and defeats the purpose of me not having to type, but maybe that's just my experience.
The latest open source local STT models people are running on devices are significantly more robust (e.g. whisper models, parakeet models, etc.). So background noise, mumbling, and/or just not having a perfect audio environment doesn't trip up the SoTA models as much (all of them still do get tripped up).
I work in voice AI and am using these models (both proprietary and local open source) every day. Night and day different for me.
I've built my own tts apps testing whisper and while it's good it does hallucinate quite a bit if there's noise, or just sometimes when the audio is perfectly clear.
It often gives the illusion of being very good but I could record a half hour of me speaking and discover some very random stuff in the middle that I did not say
Yup, you're absolutely right. The open source models do have their rough edges. I use NVIDIA's Parakeet v3 model a lot locally, and it will occasionally do this thing where it just repeats a word like a dozen times.
When you activate it you agree that your voice input is sent to Apple. As far as I understand this project runs fully locally. Up to you to decide for whatever suits your needs best.
"When you use Dictation, your device will indicate in Keyboard Settings if your audio and transcripts are processed on your device and not sent to Apple servers. Otherwise, the things you dictate are sent to and processed on the server, but will not be stored unless you opt in to Improve Siri and Dictation."
And:
"Dictation processes many voice inputs on your Mac. Information will be sent to Apple in some cases."
In conclusion... I think they're trying to cover all their bases, but it sounds like things are processed locally as long as the hardware can handle it.
No, that is not correct. It is running one hundred percent local. You can try it by turning off internet on your phone and try running it then. However, the built in model isn't as good, so this is probably better.
If you must know, I got my second DUI last year. I no longer drink and drive. The concept of fun is a distant one these days. Uber costs three times the dinner and drinks. So I stay home.
> I generally only attempt to scrutinize government action, and not government reason for action
This might be the wildest opinion I've read.
You're onboard with the US bombing another country ("I like the war"), but you don't know, or care WHY. You just think it was a good idea.
"Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning."
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you re-read your own words, you've just said a random citizen like yourself can't possibly know enough to have an informed opinion, yet you gave us your opinion, which is that you think they should have bombed Iran.
You need to reread my words. I never said I can't possibly know enough to have an informed opinion generally. Nor did I say it's impossible to have an informed opinion in what I gave my opinion on.
> Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning.
Trump casually talks about destroying the energy infrastructure, power plants, desalination plants etc. This is one of the most controversial things that the Russians do in Ukraine - attack the grid when it's cold to try and freeze people to death. To willingly deprive a country of 100,000,000 people of water and power coming into summer would surely be a war-crime.
Different goals. Carpet bombing to deny Iran access to its coast is maneouvre warfare. It’s tactical. Carpet bombing to force Kyiv to capitulate is strategic bombing. It has never worked.
You can't deny access to a coast that large with carpet bombing, especially in a mountainous terrain. It has never worked. You'd need tens to hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground to do that.
If you wanted to try it with bombs, it would take continual re-dropping of hundreds of thousands of bombs every few hours to cover (1600km * 8km) to keep people out, even assuming they have 0 shelter or cover.
> can't deny access to a coast that large with carpet bombing, especially in a mountainous terrain. It has never worked. You'd need tens to hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground to do that
I think this is more an open question than “it has never worked.” Nobody has tried to area deny FPV-drone navigators. Bases on lines of sight and line channels, one could probably back out from transit paths to the places one would need to be to hit that target, and then ensure anything there is turned from psychology to biology before a critical moment. You couldn’t do this with smart munitions, and couldn’t along the entire Hormuz coast. But for critical junctures that our closest allies (minus Kuwait) need to export? The math seems feasible, if fundamentally untackled.
> I think this is more an open question than “it has never worked.”
I don't think so – we were talking about continually carpet bombing Iran to continually deny them access to a 1600km-long coastline. That simply has never worked. Not in Iran, not elsewhere to my knowledge.
> Bases on lines of sight and line channels, one could probably back out from transit paths to the places one would need to be to hit that target
That describes pretty much anywhere in the 7000+ square kilometers we're talking about. A drone doesn't need a runway. Anywhere you can fit a large pickup truck, you can launch a Shaheed drone.
> Nobody has tried to area deny FPV-drone navigators.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Deny the area to Iran's FPV drones? If so, how? Use FPV drones to deny the area? If so, how? We're talking about continually patrolling 7,000+ square kilometers. The USA has never fielded such a system, and has no publicly known capabilities to do so.
I don’t see how they’ll have different results, just because the aim is different. You just… take cover. Then come back once the planes fly away and continue what you were doing.
Iran already had severe water problems. Attacking the water infrastructure would definitely cause huge civilian casualties. Israel is used to that. Not clear whether America is ready to go into the midterms with an official policy of US-flagged genocide.
There has been (I think) relatively minor hits. And Iran has retaliated in kind (see the latest hit on Kuwaiti desalination plant).
The thing is that while Iran's water infrastructure is vulnerable, the Gulf states are much more reliant on desalination ... and hitting them hard there would be a total disaster ... which Iran is capable of doing, but has so far refrained.
> Attacking the water infrastructure would definitely cause huge civilian casualties
I personally think there is a wide barrier between electrical and water infrastructure. But given water infra has allegedly been hit already, it doesn’t feel like it’s off the table for both sides the way it once was.
> The Gulf coastline is almost 1000 miles long, there would have to be a gigantic occupation of an area the size of a small country
If you want to secure even 5 miles inland over 1000 miles, that's 50,000 square miles, or an area bigger than more than half the countries on earth, including North and South Korea,
> If you want to secure even 5 miles inland over 1000 miles, that's 50,000 square miles
If you want to secure the entire Strait, sure. My understanding is you'd only seek to hold the area around the Musandam Peninsula, along with a couple of the islands near it.
> if they are able to hit a few gas/oil carriers with drones there, nobody is going to use that body of water
It’s a lot more feasible to escort tankers after the Strait than it is before, when American warships have to come close to shore. Iran doesn’t have the resources to deny access to the entire Indian Ocean.
> Iran doesn’t have the resources to deny access to the entire Indian Ocean.
I have what may be a scale issue in my imagination, so bear with me if this is silly.
There are reports of international drug transport via seaborne drones in the 0.5-5 tonne range, and of these crossing the Pacific, and the cost of the vehicles is estimated to be around 2-4 million USD each. If drug dealers can do that, surely Iran (and basically everyone with a GDP at least the size of something like Andorra's) should be able to make credible threats to disrupt approximately as much non-military shipping as they want to worldwide?
> if drug dealers can do that, surely Iran (and basically everyone with a GDP at least the size of something like Andorra's) should be able to make credible threats to disrupt approximately as much non-military shipping as they want to worldwide?
Sure. Do you think that means worldwide shipping would shut down?
And the point isn't to take the risk to zero. But to a level where military escorts can feel safe.
> Do you think that means worldwide shipping would shut down?
I think there's a danger of that, at least if countermeasures are not easily available for normal shipping.
Even 1-on-1 rather than 1-v-everyone, there's too many players (not all of them nations) with too many conflicting goals and interests. If Cuba tried to do it, could they credibly threaten to sink all sea-based trade involving the USA? If not Cuba, who would be the smallest nation that could?
And the same applies to Taiwan and China, in both directions, either of which would be fairly dramatic on the world stage, even though China also has land options. Or North Korea putting up an effective anti-shipping blockade against Japan.
> But to a level where military escorts can feel safe.
Are there enough military ships to do the escorting?
> the US and Europe would be pretty fucked since we depend on it much more.
China could still get resources from russia and is much more self sustained
America would be fine. We have the Americas and Asia to trade with, and Iran can’t restrict those oceans in any meaningful way.
Europe, the Middle East, Africa and non-China Asia would get screwed.
? There's really not much discussion of Iran being a problem outside the Gulf.
Iran can control the Gulf and therefore 20% of global carbons.
This is enough to put the world economy into recession.
America is not 'isolated' from the global economy.
US carbon produces don't give smack about the nation generally - they will sell to the highest bidder.
If global Oil prices skyrocket - you will pay that at the pump.
US is net carbon exporter, but there is trade - the refineries in the south are designed for heavy crude from Venezuela and Canada etc.
Yes, some national policies could alter a bit, but only in emergency, and the current Administration does not give a * about national issues, other than populist blowback. They will prefer their oil buddies by default, but with a lot of leaway for 'gas prices' causing voting problems.
US companies sell abroad, a global recession affects everything.
Just google OPEC crisis - you can see what high oil prices do, they screw everything up.
There's 100% chance of global recession if Gulf stays closed.
Given the 'leverage' in US market that can come way down. US GDP is currently held up with AI spending - if that math falters, that AI investment slows down, the US drops into recession, that causes flight from equities etc etc.
I don't think we need to speculate about anything outside of the Gulf.
It's bad, it needs to be resolved.
You see this calamity in the daily statements from WH - they are 'in out in out in out' in the same day they say 'witdhdraw' and then 'we must open the strait'.
You think people don't complain when the train is late in other countries? That's hardly a uniquely German thing
reply