> But either way, that is getting way too deep in the weeds compared to where my point started.
Your first comment - the one that started all this - was, as far as I can understand, arguing that this feature indicated that Google had the capabilities to do more advanced - understanding? processing? meaning analysis? - than it had done in the past. If I keep coming back to that, well, it's because it appears to be your main point. If it's not, please correct me.
> Most times the specific homophone can be inferred based on things like part of speech and the part of speech can often be inferred from a sentence without knowing any meaning.
This is not true. I don't think I have enough more responses on HN to fully explain why homophones can not be inferred without understanding meaning, but I encourage you to go and read about how transcription works!
> For example, would the system be able to properly handle homophones that are grammatically similar?
I mean, this is easy enough for you to check. Here's some videos about flour / flower - notice how the CCs correctly determine if the word is flour or flower with almost 100% accuracy.
> This feature calls attention to an analysis of meaning because the user sees the software reacting to the meaning of the content of the video.
Are you saying you specifically think that YT is analyzing meaning from this feature, or just some generic user? I think you are smart enough to know that it's not true, but perhaps my mom might not understand that CCs require infinitely more processing power and this feature is just a drop in the bucket. (If you really still don't think it's true, definitely go read more about how CCs are made!)
>Your first comment - the one that started all this - was, as far as I can understand, arguing that this feature indicated that Google had the capabilities to do more advanced - understanding? processing? meaning analysis? - than it had done in the past. If I keep coming back to that, well, it's because it appears to be your main point. If it's not, please correct me.
Here is what I said. "It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos... It isn't that I didn't know Google had this ability...". My point was not that I learned about Google's capability from this feature or that this capability was new, it is that this calls attention to Google looking for meaning in the content of the video. A transcript does not call attention to Google looking for meaning regardless of how the transcripts are prepared.
>I mean, this is easy enough for you to check. Here's some videos about flour / flower - notice how the CCs correctly determine if the word is flour or flower with almost 100% accuracy.
Both those videos include the correct homophone in the title and description of the video. Choosing the correct one is not an indication of the system using the meaning of those words, it is pattern recognition. Every use of "flower" means the next usage is less likely to be "flour". The specificity of the example I used was important because it used both "flower" and "flour" in a way that can only be distinguished by the meaning of the words.
>Are you saying you specifically think that YT is analyzing meaning from this feature, or just some generic user? I think you are smart enough to know that it's not true, but perhaps my mom might not understand that CCs require infinitely more processing power and this feature is just a drop in the bucket. (If you really still don't think it's true, definitely go read more about how CCs are made!)
This feature is a glowing sign that Youtube as a company analyses the content of the videos for the meaning of what is said in those videos. You are too deep into the technical details trying to assign credit for what aspect of Youtube does the "understanding" or which "require[s] infinitely more processing power".
Think of this feature like receiving mail and you see one of the letters has already been opened. That could make you feel like your privacy was invaded in a way you wouldn't feel after receiving a postcard. And now we have spent several comments debating whether a torn envelope indicates whether anyone read the letter and whether a postcard is private.
Your first comment - the one that started all this - was, as far as I can understand, arguing that this feature indicated that Google had the capabilities to do more advanced - understanding? processing? meaning analysis? - than it had done in the past. If I keep coming back to that, well, it's because it appears to be your main point. If it's not, please correct me.
> Most times the specific homophone can be inferred based on things like part of speech and the part of speech can often be inferred from a sentence without knowing any meaning.
This is not true. I don't think I have enough more responses on HN to fully explain why homophones can not be inferred without understanding meaning, but I encourage you to go and read about how transcription works!
> For example, would the system be able to properly handle homophones that are grammatically similar?
I mean, this is easy enough for you to check. Here's some videos about flour / flower - notice how the CCs correctly determine if the word is flour or flower with almost 100% accuracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8vLjPctrcU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdaRvErv2Kc
> This feature calls attention to an analysis of meaning because the user sees the software reacting to the meaning of the content of the video.
Are you saying you specifically think that YT is analyzing meaning from this feature, or just some generic user? I think you are smart enough to know that it's not true, but perhaps my mom might not understand that CCs require infinitely more processing power and this feature is just a drop in the bucket. (If you really still don't think it's true, definitely go read more about how CCs are made!)