Apparently private browsing is pretty easy to detect in any browser:
> Also yes, in case you didn't know, there's lots of ways to detect private browsing using JavaScript. It's kinda dumb that browsers don't work harder to make it imperceptible.
Slightly surprising that Google Chrome is bringing up the back of the pack when it comes to incognito mode, Firefox and Safari can both view this site without the popup complaining about using incognito mode.
One doesn't exclude the other. I'm going to let the website owner know, but at the same time I'd expect the browser vendors to take greater care about protecting the private mode.
> Slightly surprising that Google Chrome is bringing up the back of the pack
Actually that's quite opposite to surprising in this case - tracking users and their behaviors is googles bread and butter so this is probably feature, not a bug
Perhaps turn off Javascript? I use a nice little JS toggle plugin in Firefox for that, and apparently I disabled JS for this site in the past, which is a sign they tried some BS when I last visited (and the site functioned fine without JS) :P
Brave is based on Chromium, how are they able to claim "loads major news sites 2 to 8 times faster than Chrome/Safari on mobile and 2 times faster than Chrome on desktop"?
That's a good question...I don't care about the performance of a browser because nowadays everything loads instantly anyways. Brave has built in anti-ad features, also can operate in TOR mode and that's pretty much the only reason of why I'm using it.
It's "servicing millions of customer requests a day" or some part of "50,000" (later in the article)?
The example doesn't seem compelling to me, it's not rearranged the delivery, it's not solving any substantial problem in the co-dialog. What does this prove?
It's possible that it's actually serving millions of requests, if most requests happen outside of customer service calls or if they count each individual utterance in a dialog as a separate request (it probably is a separate request to the backend).
On the other hand, maybe someone wrote a description in Chinese that said "several tens of thousands" and someone else had it machine-translated into English. The problem being that "tens of thousands" can also be a symbolic "big number" (like "myriads") and modern English tends to use "millions" as that symbolic number instead.
The existence of symbolic numbers is a common source of translation mistakes. For example, I recently came across a Japanese text [45] where Google Translate will turn 一三 into 13 or a thousand, depending on whether you include 「quotation marks」 or not
I always wondered what the implications are for the "lack of privacy" in China, for the better or the worse. What I mean by this is something like WeChat. A lot of Americans do not understand the sheer size of data it collects. WeChat (by Tencent) is pretty much a conglomerate of all the top services we use here in the states (Google, Paypal, Facebook, Stripe, Venmo, Whatsapp, etc). Now imagine when the Chinese government starts dictating the development of AI through this data. I am not sure if there is another country that can collect and distribute data at this scale since there is not much public remorse for such actions.
This is why China will beat any other countries including US on AI and ML hands-down, it has no privacy law and people don't care that much either so it collects such a huge volume of data for training and mining.
Wouldn't that be why it wouldn't. It can't export their models because they require to much information. In places like europe it would be a nightmare to use any of it. So in China it would be ok, but outside it's hard to implement.
Considering many Alibaba’s P8+ comes from FLAANG and the whole company works like hell (9-9-6) to deliver, this is not surprising. Serving millions requests is laughable at Alibaba scale and might indicate this is not widely used yet.
Not all languages are created equal. Chinese has very few sibilant consonants. It all about vowels with varying pitch. English is just hopeless. I myself for example just cannot use Google in English, because of 50% error rate.
Some languages are significantly easier to train against than English, for example 80hrs of Turkish got some decent results for this group using Mozilla Deepspeech: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.00868.pdf
For context, Baidu used a bit over 5000 hours of English to get a decent model.
Also, OP may have a pronunciation difference (regional, hyper-local or just from learning English as a second language) that isn't handled well by Google's models.
I suspect deep learning researchers have no real incentive to use the minimum amount of data sufficient to get their thing working. The worst case for them is if their model underperforms because of insufficient data instead of something truly DL-related, so they use as much data as they have/can handle. It could still be that you're right, but I wouldn't rely on those kinds of published numbers.
Whatever, but it does not work, as I can easily demonstrate. I once tried to buy flashlight batteries from Vancouver. I tried every possible variation of BATTERY, but had to write it on paper.
Problem is that English does not have standard pronunciation, because writing is not phonetic. In other languages everybody knows what is the official pronunciation even if their own dialect vary wildly.
Just tried saying battery in many different ways, even mumbling and it got it correctly every time. No idea how you pronounce stuff in order to have such problems.
The problem at time was the stress point. In most of my languages the stressing is flat or in the back. At first I started using the standard "BAT-TE-RII" of almost all languages, but realized soon it is maybe pronounced "BAT-RII", but failed to emphasize the first syllabel as in "BATTT-ri" and ended up varying forms of "baaat-RRRIIIIII".
Mandarin Chinese has more sibilants than English, so I don't know what you're talking about. The English sibilants are s, z, ts, ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ. The Mandarin sibilants are s, ts, tsʰ, ɕ, tɕ, tɕʰ, ʂ, ʈʂ, ʈʂʰ.
Actually English has thousands of sibilants and millions of vowels . Think about differences between a Scottish speaker and Guido van Rossum. Problem is of course that there is no standard pronunciation or even method to define it.
If it's servicing millions of live requests and is in production, why couldn't they review the live system?
The story's title kind of seems clickbaity because of this IMHO.