Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Thanks... Too long of a scroll to find somebody posting the actual science behind the click-bait.



Nit: this is more design/engineering than science. There is no hypothesis being tested about how the world works.


Did you read section 3 of the paper where they evaluate their system?

> We primarily rely on crowdsourced Mean Opinion Score (MOS) evaluations based on subjective listening tests. All our MOS evaluations are aligned to the Absolute Category Rating scale [14], with rating scores from 1 to 5 in 0.5 point increments. We use this framework to evaluate synthesized speech along two dimensions: its naturalness and similarity to real speech from the target speaker.

They're testing if the generated speech sounds natural with a well-defined and reproducible experiment. That's science.


Evaluation doesn’t make it science.

There’s no investigation of the physical or natural world going on, unless they really think they’re modeling how humans are able to talk. But they’re not — they’re trying to create a system that works no matter how unnatural it is.


I'll take that as a no.

> There’s no investigation of the physical or natural world going on

I just quoted them describing their observational method! Do you just not believe psychology is a science?

> unless they really think they’re modeling how humans are able to talk

I've lost you. They're not generating birdsong. What do you think WaveNet does exactly?


Did you know that there's an entire field called Computer Science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science


Computer science should have been called "Computer math".




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: