[HN Gopher] Complete silence is always hallucinated as "trjm@ nn...
___________________________________________________________________
Complete silence is always hallucinated as "trjm@ nnsy qnqr" in
Arabic
Author : edent
Score : 518 points
Date : 2025-07-22 05:42 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| GaggiX wrote:
| Whisper frequently generates random credits. I guess they didn't
| curate the dataset much at the time.
| sivers wrote:
| to save you a lookup:
|
| The Arabic text "rjm@ nnsy qnqr" translates to English as: "Nancy
| Qanqar's translation" or "Translation by Nancy Qanqar"
|
| "rjm@" means "translation" and "nnsy qnqr" is the name "Nancy
| Qanqar"
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| And it seems to be because the training data is largely
| unofficial subtitles from movies. Which often have a string
| like "Translated by X" at the end of the movie which is often
| silent while credits roll.
| iqfareez wrote:
| make sense..
| rob74 wrote:
| Looks like they used more official sources for German -
| there, silence is apparently hallucinated as "Untertitelung
| des ZDF fur funk, 2017" according to one of the comments on
| the issue. Which makes sense, as the public broadcasters'
| "Mediathek" is probably the largest freely available resource
| of subtitled videos in Germany. I wonder if the ZDF gave its
| approval for it being used for LLM training though?
| MrGilbert wrote:
| > I wonder if the ZDF gave its approval for it being used
| for LLM training though?
|
| I am pretty sure they didn't get asked.
| h784gljf wrote:
| Just like the people forced to pay for ZDF under threat
| of imprisonment.
| eclecticfrank wrote:
| This person refers to the German television and radio fee
| (Rundfunkgebuhren).[1] It is a state-mandated system that
| ensures free (as in free speech) and (relatively) neutral
| public broadcasting institutions. There is a constant and
| engaged discussion, because every household in Germany
| has to pay this fee. Exceptions are made only for low-
| income households.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARD_ZDF_Deutschlandradi
| o_Beitr...
| rob74 wrote:
| A constant discussion, lately fueled by extremist parties
| (AfD) who feel treated unfairly by (amongst others) the
| public broadcasters (which has parallels to Trump's
| recent campaign against public broadcasters in the US).
| blueflow wrote:
| Can't argue them - Tageschau always has been trashtalking
| people with the wrong opinion.
|
| Back in 2011, Tageeschau openly rallied against Muslims
| and wanting public broadcasting gone was a leftist
| position. The whole thing is completely asinine to anyone
| who remembers.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| So, people are made pay for it, and it makes it fair if
| billion USD corporations don't?
| TheBicPen wrote:
| Just like any other public service paid for with public
| funds?
| h43z wrote:
| Oh it's like any other. Then just add another one!
| wongarsu wrote:
| I'm being made to pay for Autobahnen I barely use,
| finance kindergartens despite not having a child, and
| made to pay into public pensions with little hope of
| getting close to the same value out. All under threat of
| imprisonment, many without a way to even refuse (not that
| I'd want to) The only thing that sets the pubic
| broadcasting fee apart is that it's collected separately
| from taxes in an attempt to reduce the influence
| politicians have on broadcasters
| Zacharias030 wrote:
| definitely not! The media platform of the German public
| television networks is even geoblocking anyone outside of
| Germany.
|
| https://www.ardmediathek.de/
| unusual-name wrote:
| Most content from Funk (youtubers funded by public german
| broadcasters) is available on youtube without any
| geoblocking or other limitations.
| rob74 wrote:
| Ah, ok, thanks for the info, TIL! "We are funk - the
| first public service content network that started on
| October 1, 2016. We create online-only content on social
| networks and third-party platforms, including YouTube,
| Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Spotify, Apple Music or
| Twitch for 14-29 year-olds."
| (https://presse.funk.net/das-ist-funk/, scroll down for
| the English version). I live in Germany, and I even watch
| public broadcasters regularly, but this is the first time
| I have heard about funk (I even initially thought it was
| misspelled, usually it's written with a capital F). But
| I'm not part of the targeted audience (not now, nor even
| back in 2016 when it was launched), so all good...
| layer8 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that content doesn't come with a license
| granting unlimited usage rights.
| darkwater wrote:
| from the link[1] another user posted:
|
| > We have a public service mandate, which means that we
| have very clear responsibilities according to the state
| media treaty. For us, this means that our top priority is
| actually reaching our target audience, namely
| approximately 15 million people living in Germany between
| the age of 14 and 29 who have internet access
|
| It's not a binding contract for sure but I don't think
| that OpenAI or other AI scraper is their target.
|
| [1] https://presse.funk.net/das-ist-funk/
| bigiain wrote:
| A more appropriate output might be ``4'33" -- John Cage,
| 1952``
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| > I wonder if the ZDF gave its approval for it being used
| for LLM training though?
|
| Obviously a rhetorical question. The AI grifters of this
| decade take what they want and laugh at your pitiful future
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| I'm sure they totally did not pirate the audio of said
| movies.
| mormegil wrote:
| In Czech, Whisper usually transcribes music as "Titulky
| vytvoril JohnyX" ("subtitles made by JohnyX") for the same
| reason.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Haha, trained on torrented movies! :-D
|
| The MPA must be so proud.
| Incipient wrote:
| It's absolutely insane that these companies can't be held
| liable for what is obvious piracy.
| jdiff wrote:
| That's the magic of money. Download your favorite
| artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had
| its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could
| bankrupt you.
|
| The AI industry - soaking up every bit of media available
| online for commercial purposes, often reproducing it
| nearly identically - has enough money and capital to
| influence things its way. And only its way, in case
| anyone was hoping this might change anything at all for
| the little guy.
| 1718627440 wrote:
| The movie industry also has some money and lobbying
| power. Surely this is a way larger threat than any single
| torrenter could ever be?
| jdiff wrote:
| The fact that this is propping up the entire AI industry
| adds additional weight. When legislating or deciding
| court cases, some won't be willing to pop the cash cow,
| some will be worried about falling behind countries that
| don't enforce copyright evenly. IP owners _are_ trying to
| go after the AI industry, with only mixed to poor
| success.
| verzali wrote:
| Hard to justify that they can't afford to pay when they
| have multi-billion dollar valuations and are apparently
| paying hundreds of millions to get a single engineer.
| jdiff wrote:
| Maybe. But we are talking about the whole of copyrighted
| creative works created and sold by humanity. That'll get
| expensive no matter who you are.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| > Download your favorite artist's discography for
| personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it
| occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you.
|
| I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases
| where _ONLY_ downloading has resulted in huge fines. All
| the big bankrupting level fines have been for both
| downloading _and_ sharing.
|
| You mention that 'torrenting' could bankrupt you, and
| that is true, but the main reason for the huge fines are
| that you are taking part in distribution rather than just
| 'downloading for personal use'.
| jdiff wrote:
| Given the lack of sense in treating each peer as a lost
| sale for damages, I think we can safely say they're only
| interested in making examples out of people and would
| absolutely go after people for only downloading if the
| law permitted. Thankfully it's not, but maybe they lobby
| to make changes in that direction to try and curb future
| AI industry shenanigans.
| 0points wrote:
| > I don't think that there are any clear examples of
| cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines.
|
| They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders
| for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP
| addresses connected with the torrent [2].
|
| 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-
| films/q...
|
| 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-
| threats-...
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| Yes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both.
| The articles you link are very clearly talking about
| 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both
| download and upload of a file.").
| 0points wrote:
| Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe
| there is no distinction.
|
| Hint: there is a distinction.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| There is indeed, but not when you're torrenting (i.e. you
| can't download without also uploading).
| 0points wrote:
| Even when you are torrenting, there is a clear
| distinction of the different roles.
|
| Copying from another comment I wrote here:
|
| > These are two separate things:
|
| > * Making content available for unauthorized
| distribution
|
| > * Distributing unauthorized content that someone else
| already made available
|
| > Seeding isn't making content available, it's keeping
| content available.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| Replied to your other comment (sorry, didn't clock that
| we had two threads ongoing)
| gruez wrote:
| >with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected
| with the torrent [2].
|
| Is that an unreasonable assumption? As much as people
| like to come up with excuses like "I had open wifi!" or
| "I was running a TOR node", judges don't seem inclined to
| believe them, probably for the same reason they don't
| seem inclined to believe excuses like "somebody took my
| car on a joyride and then returned it!" for parking
| tickets. Remember, both non-commercial copyright
| infringement lawsuits and parking tickets are tried in
| civil court, which means the standard is "preponderance
| of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".
| actionfromafar wrote:
| DHCP addresses often shuffle on reboots. I don't trust
| ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out
| in a correct manner if they do.
| gruez wrote:
| >I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records
| or give them out in a correct manner if they do.
|
| How hard could it be to keep DHCP logs? Assuming they
| exist at all, what would cause it to be incorrect?
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| I'm sure they exist. I think the point is more that you
| shouldn't need to trust your ISP's record-keeping to
| avoid life-alteringly big fines.
| 0points wrote:
| You are missing the point I was replying to, specifically
| that parent suggested people were only hunted for
| creating/uploading pirated content, not merely
| participating in the torrent.
| gruez wrote:
| >specifically that parent suggested people were only
| hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely
| participating in the torrent.
|
| For all intents and purposes, participating in the
| torrent almost guarantees that you seeded, because all
| torrent clients upload as you download.
| 0points wrote:
| These are two separate things:
|
| * Making content available for unauthorized distribution
|
| * Distributing unauthorized content that someone else
| already made available
|
| Seeding isn't _making_ content available, it 's _keeping_
| content available.
| gruez wrote:
| But both are illegal? I suspect if it came out that some
| torrent seeder was actually part of some sort of piracy
| ring responsible for ripping the movies, they'd get far
| stiffer penalties than the few thousand $ fine that
| typical torrenters get. Moreover isn't AI companies also
| "keeping content available"?
| 0points wrote:
| Both are illegal, yes.
|
| That still doesn't make them the same thing. There are
| different shades of grey, etc.
|
| > Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content
| available"?
|
| I don't know what you mean by that.
| gruez wrote:
| >I don't know what you mean by that.
|
| The whole point of the thread is that AI companies are
| getting away with piracy but individuals aren't. But the
| reality is that AI companies aren't getting away with it
| (a judge ruled that Anthropic must face trial over their
| use of pirated books).
|
| More specific to this thread is that claim that "ONLY
| downloading" hasn't resulted in fines for anyone. So far
| as I can tell, this is true. People are just quibbling
| over how someone who's torrenting somehow counts as "only
| downloading", even though their client is uploading.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| That's a really interesting distinction. Clearly there's
| an "original crime", the first person to rip the CD and
| put it online (or whatever kids do to pirate music
| nowadays).
|
| But then if I download a file, create a copy, and share
| it with you, have I done anything wrong?
|
| To all intents and purposes, seeding _is_ an act of
| reproduction. You, while keeping your copy, create copies
| of (parts) of the file and share it to someone else to
| allow them to assemble a new, second copy.
|
| Whether this is, or should be, a crime is a different
| question altogether. The main point I was making is that
| it's the copying/sharing to other people which seems to
| be a crucial element in these prosecutions.
|
| That's likely intentional: the last thing the *AA folks
| want is a decision that creating a copy of a copyrighted
| work for your own personal use is not a crime. But it
| does seem the courts have decided: making a copy for
| someone else is indeed illegal.
| jajko wrote:
| You contradict yourself. There were numerous public cases
| where they chased people downloading few mp3s just for
| themselves, and made into example case with massive
| fines.
|
| If you don't understand how torrents work on technical
| level I suggest at least some shallow reading. Property
| rights holders don't care about details, as long as you
| tick the box of sending a single packet to somebody, off
| to court with ya.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| > There were numerous public cases where they chased
| people downloading few mp3s just for themselves
|
| If this is true, I have been unable to find any. Can you
| please share? In all of the cases I was able to find, the
| huge fines were based on _also_ uploading.
|
| > If you don't understand how torrents work on technical
| level I suggest at least some shallow reading
|
| This is a bit patronising, and I'm not sure what point
| you're trying to make. My point is that the only
| prosecutions I've been able to find are where they were
| able to prove _uploading_ as well as downloading (and
| yes, the fact that someone used BitTorrent makes it a
| slam-dunk, because the protocol makes it impossible to
| download without also uploading). Are you trying to argue
| that someone who torrents a copyrighted work doesn 't
| also share it?
| anon191928 wrote:
| court judges agree to this
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's more the magic of precedent.
|
| The fight about digitized media for personal
| (entertainment / informational) use were the early
| aughts. The precedents crafted then don't immediately
| translate to these cases (novel transformative work from
| protected materials), and the new precedents have to
| account for the fact that universities have been training
| via "piracy" for ages.
|
| (The magic of money factors in to the extent that they
| can afford the lawyers to remind the court that this
| isn't settled law yet).
| boredhedgehog wrote:
| It's an indication how few people consider license
| infringements as a matter of actual moral import. Those
| tend to evoke strong feelings.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| It's the way it should be.
| pavon wrote:
| Anthropic is going to trial over pirating books for
| training. The judge was pretty clear that even if
| training is fair use, the training material must be
| obtained legally.
|
| These regurgitations combined with proof that a model is
| familiar with a work could be sufficient evidence to
| force discovery to determine if the work was pirated.
| scotty79 wrote:
| What's insane is copyright. How come you can own
| intellectual property but not pay a property tax? The
| ecosystem would be much healthier if to get copyright
| protections you should declare value of your IP (that you
| are obligated to sell for if the buyer pops up) and pay
| tax on this for every year you hold the IP.
| retsibsi wrote:
| > if to get copyright protections you should declare
| value of your IP (that you are obligated to sell for if
| the buyer pops up) and pay tax on this for every year you
| hold the IP
|
| I think this would have some unpalatable consequences.
| Let's say an author is writing a modestly successful book
| series: it's not going to make them rich, but it's
| commercially viable and they care a lot about it for its
| own sake. Under this system, if the author declares a
| value commensurate with the (quite small) pure economic
| value of the IP, they have to live in fear of their right
| to continue working on their creation being abruptly
| taken away from them at any point. If they instead
| declare a value commensurate with the economic value +
| the extra value that it has to them personally, the
| resulting tax liability could easily tip the balance and
| destroy their ability to pursue their writing as a
| career.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Perhaps the tax would start a decade after the first
| sale.
| scotty79 wrote:
| You are always free to update the value before paying
| tax. If somebody is willing to pay more than it's worth
| to you they probably have an idea how to turn it into
| more economic value for the society. So the society
| should allow them to do that. For a price, of the tax.
| What I'm proposing is about the financial rights.
| Individual right, like the right to call yourself author
| of any given creation should be inalienable.
|
| There are always some cases on the edge. The question is
| if saving them is worth the cost of the major players
| running rampant.
| immibis wrote:
| Indeed, this is a general problem with a lot of these
| schemes.
|
| We shouldn't abandon the line of investigation, however.
| We should continue thinking of ways to do this until we
| find one that works well.
|
| There's a chance it ends up being something that requires
| a judge to interpret each individual case...
| gruez wrote:
| >What's insane is copyright. How come you can own
| intellectual property but not pay a property tax? The
|
| Most jurisdictions that have "property tax" only apply it
| on certain types of property, most commonly real estate.
| So it's not that weird that IP isn't taxed.
| codedokode wrote:
| This is corsairy, not piracy, do not be mistaken.
| beshrkayali wrote:
| You've got a little typo, it's not "rjm@", it's "trjm@" that
| means translation, the t at the beginning is missing.
| dandiep wrote:
| Whisper is unusable IMO because of the hallucinations. Widely
| documented. Removing silence from audio clips helps, but even
| then it will auto correct grammar, translating bilingual speech,
| etc. Improved in the latest audio models but not solved [1]
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43427376
| eric-burel wrote:
| That's the problem with raws large models, it should always be
| coupled with satellite small models and logic. It's (probably)
| easier to detect hallucinations using a traditional ML/DL model
| that can catch mismatches (it's easy to build a synthetic
| dataset for this) than transcribing. And the simplest piece of
| code can detect a silence and that it should match no text.
| ilyakaminsky wrote:
| I wouldn't describe it as "unusable" so much as needing to
| understand its constraints and how to work around them. I built
| a business on top of Whisper [1] and one of the early key
| insights was to implement a good voice activity detection (VAD)
| model in order to reduce Whisper's hallucinations on silence.
|
| [1] https://speechischeap.com
| poly2it wrote:
| How does this make a profit? Whisper should be $0.006 to
| $0.010 per minute, but you rate less than $0.001? Do you 10x
| the audio?
| ilyakaminsky wrote:
| Thanks for noticing. It took a lot of effort to optimize
| the pipeline every step of the way. VAD, inference server,
| hardware optimization, etc. But nothing that would
| compromise on quality. The audio is currently transcribed
| in its original speed. I'll be sure to publish something if
| I manage to speed it up without incurring any losses to the
| WER.
| horseradish7k wrote:
| well, auto correcting grammar happens in normal subtitles
| too... "Why don't subtitles match dubbing?" by Tom Scott:
| https://youtu.be/pU9sHwNKc2c
| GodelNumbering wrote:
| Interesting that this happens even on large v3. I had once done a
| deep dive into STT and Whisper Large was the only model that
| could correctly transcribe Yann LeCun (it was a Lex Friedman
| podcast), ever since I held the belief that it was the best STT
| model, this was over 2 years ago
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Classic overfitting
|
| It's the LLM equivalent of thinking that an out-of-office reply
| is the translation:
| https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/nov/01/5
| stingraycharles wrote:
| How is this overfitting, rather than a data quality /
| classification issue?
| hsn915 wrote:
| uThe Arabic text is the translator's self credit
|
| "Translated by Nancy Qanfar"
| wongarsu wrote:
| And the German is "subtitles of [public broadcaster] for
| [content network], 2017
|
| I'm not sure this is really overfitting, the network does
| exactly what the training data demands. According to the
| training data silence art the end transcribes to a
| copyright notice or subtitle credits
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| > I'm not sure this is really overfitting, the network
| does exactly what the training data demands.
|
| What do you think overfitting is, if not that?
| wongarsu wrote:
| Overfitting would be replicating overly specific details.
| Like if a specific pattern of silence (or quiet noise)
| matched to specific copyright notices.
|
| But in this case the behavior seems to generalize over
| multiple languages, with the model choosing
| representative "outro silence" captions depending on the
| language. Which is consistent with the training data
| showing that outro silence is captioned.
|
| If the model was generalizing perfectly it would show
| something like "[subtitle credits here]" but that'd be
| demanding a bit much.
|
| Transcribing outro silence as silence despite the
| training data consistently transcribing outro silence
| differently from regular silence would be underfitting
| maxbond wrote:
| The optimizer is functioning correctly, and the pattern
| really exists in the training data. But consider:
|
| - This behavior damages the model's performance on out of
| sample data; every word you predict during silence
| increases the transcript's Word Error Rate.
|
| - These translation credits are an artifact of our
| training data, and not a reflection of the process we are
| modeling (spoken language).
|
| So, while you are correct about the mechanism at work
| here, it is still correct to call learning a spurious
| pattern which damages our performance "overfitting".
| bmacho wrote:
| Overfitting is achieving better and better scores on the
| training material and worse and worse scores on unseen
| tasks. More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting
| #Machine_learning
|
| This is just wrong training data.
| samrus wrote:
| fitting on noise in the training data is exactly what
| overfitting is. underfitting is smoothing out signal
| wongarsu wrote:
| Exactly. Underfitting would be if the model doesn't pick
| up on the fact that outro silence is labeled differently
| from regular silence and transcribes them the same
| xigoi wrote:
| Overfitting implies a failure to properly generalize the
| training data. Here it generalized them correctly.
| Garbage in, garbage out.
| samrus wrote:
| No. Because there would have been indtances in the data
| where silence was labelled correctly. But the model
| couldnt handle the null case, so it over fit on the
| outros. But generally it fit on the random error in the
| label of the null feature. Which is what overfitting is
| andrepd wrote:
| That's literally what overfitting means.
|
| Side-note: it's also yet more evidence that AI companies
| hoover all data with no regard for legality or copyright
| status, the very same offences that got other people in
| jail or with heavy fines.
| efitz wrote:
| I know it's off topic, but it reminded me that translators
| like to put in Easter eggs, or at least they used to:
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/archive/blogs/ericfitz/i-a...
| maxbond wrote:
| It is a data quality issue which caused the model to overfit.
| mort96 wrote:
| Isn't overfitting just when the model picks up on an
| unintended pattern in the training data? Isn't that precisely
| what this is?
| bGl2YW5j wrote:
| If the model was able to generalise, you'd expect it to
| output something like "[silence]" or "...", in response to
| silence.
|
| Instead, it reverted to what it has seen before (in the
| training data), hence the overfit.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Right, maybe my definition of overfitting was wrong, I
| always understood it more as trying to optimize for a
| specific benchmark / use case, and then it starts failing
| in other areas.
|
| But the way you phrase it, it's just "the model is not
| properly able to generalize", ie it doesn't understand the
| concept of silence also makes sense.
|
| But couldn't you then argue that any type of mistake /
| unknown could be explained as "overfitting" ? Where do you
| draw the line ?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Your definition is one, but the one the OP is using is
| overfitting to training data.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| That's exactly my point: by that definition any incorrect
| answer can be explained by "overfitting to training
| data".
|
| Where do you draw the line between "overfitting to
| training data" and "incorrect data" ?
| tempaccount420 wrote:
| > That's exactly my point: by that definition any
| incorrect answer can be explained by "overfitting to
| training data".
|
| Not really, getting 94381294*123=... wrong, but close
| within the actual answer, cannot be overfitting since it
| wasn't in the training data.
| maxbond wrote:
| > [By] that definition any incorrect answer can be
| explained by "overfitting to training data".
|
| No it doesn't, for instance some errors would be caused
| by under fitting. The data could also be correct but your
| hyperparameters (such as the learning rate or dropout
| rate) could cause your model to overfit.
|
| > Where do you draw the line between "overfitting to
| training data" and "incorrect data" ?
|
| There's no need to draw a line between two explanations
| that aren't mutually exclusive. They can (as in this
| case) both be true. Overfitting is the symptom; dirty
| data is the cause.
| alienbaby wrote:
| It's actually because it is incapable of recognising when
| it does not know the answer. It will give you the nearest
| match, even if that is completely incorrect.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I think it's a classification issue.
|
| Silence is never put in the subtitles of a film, since it
| isn't necessary. The viewers can tell that nothing is being
| said if there are actors on the screen. And in situations
| where there are no actors, then there will be a subtitle to
| indicate what is going on, like "[rock music plays]".
|
| Subtitle authors use this silence to fit in meta
| information and have done so since the closed captions era.
|
| Proper data cleaning procedures would be to strip this meta
| data from any subtitle sources. Since this wasn't done,
| this is fundamentally a classification issue. It may also
| be an over-fitting issue, but that is secondary to the
| classification problem.
| Lucasoato wrote:
| In Italian as well there are random hallucination when parsing
| silence, something like: "Thank you for watching", "Subtitles
| by..."
| userbinator wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if "like share and subscribe" also
| shows up at some point.
| Muromec wrote:
| "nasha zbroia v tsei moment -- vpodobaika i koment"
| madcaptenor wrote:
| In the comments to that Github issue, by alentodorov:
|
| in romanian, i've noticed multiple instances where the
| transcripts ends with "nu uitati sa da-ti like si subscribe"
| which, as you might easily infer , translates to "don't
| forget to like and subscribe".
| tornikeo wrote:
| Garbage in, garbage out. If the training dataset (accidentally)
| paired silence (`X_train`) with `rjm@ nnsy qnqr` tokens
| (`y_pred`), then any silence will always be translated to that.
| Fortunately, this particular problem is easy to fix--just detect
| and remove silent parts before API call. This also has a side
| benefit of saving you money on transcription.
| Zacharias030 wrote:
| and saving money on litigation.
| Hobadee wrote:
| Little did you all know, this is just being mechanical turked by
| Nancy Qunqar.
|
| Way to go Nancy! Keep up the good work, ya crazy bastard!
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| Is this spam? That name only shows as an instagram account and
| this thread. If you pay for insta followers is this how they
| get them now? Haha
| DAlperin wrote:
| That's the name in the Arabic text hallucinated by the model
| :)
| neom wrote:
| Who appears to be a real, human, translator:
| https://www.instagram.com/nancyrk/
| vanschelven wrote:
| I wonder if hallucinated copyright claims (esp. like the ZDF one
| at the bottom of the OP) will be introduced as evidence in one of
| the court cases against "big AI"
| staplers wrote:
| It already has been and meta won the lawsuit because
| corporations are sacrosanct.
| vanschelven wrote:
| Do you mean that specifically a hulucibated text "copyright
| by not-meta" made it into evidence? Or are you talking about
| copyright generally?
| berkes wrote:
| Evidence against what?
|
| "Big AI" is transparent and open about the fact they use all
| sorts of copyrighted material to train the data. How would "we
| see an exact chunk of text from our copyrighted material" add
| to that?
| pbmonster wrote:
| It appears they have not been training on the official studio
| subtitle files, but on community transcriptions/translations
| commonly distributed with torrents.
|
| So not only are they training on copyrighted material, but
| they didn't even pay for it once, and then they didn't even
| do minimal data cleaning before training. Which, by the way,
| is the type of cleaning their LLMs could have done.
| sofixa wrote:
| Their main defence is that it's fair use because it's
| transformative (like a human reading a book, getting
| inspired, and writing something of their own) and not a
| copypaste illegal distribution (like a human scanning that
| book and selling it themselves).
|
| Having models hallucinate copyright notices shows that some
| content is being copypasted as is, which kind of goes against
| the transformative argument.
|
| (Note: I think that trying to litigate AI with current
| copyright laws is weird. They were created before LLMs were
| even imagined, so of course they can't handle them clearly.
| New laws are needed around this, not trying to bend over
| backwards to think about what a lawmarker a century ago would
| have thought about how transformative a thing they couldn't
| have imagined is.)
| cyp0633 wrote:
| The same happens with whisper-large-v3 on Chinese transcription:
| silence is transcribed to something like "please upvote, share
| and favourite this video". I suspect they trained the model on
| some random YouTube video without carefully picking really useful
| data.
| st_goliath wrote:
| That's interesting, the few times I tried playing with whisper,
| I had the impression that YouTube style videos or random
| cellphone videos was something it did particularly bad with
| (compared to movies). My guess at the time was that most of the
| training material might be sub titles and raw screen plays.
|
| The videos I tried to transcribe were also Mandarin Chinese,
| using whisper-large-v3. Besides the usual complaints that it
| would phonetically "mishear" things and generate nonsense, it
| was still surprisingly good, compared to other software I
| played around with.
|
| That said, it would often invent names for the speakers and
| prefix their lines, or randomly switch between simplified and
| traditional Chinese. For the videos I tested, intermittent
| silence would often result in repeating the last line several
| times, or occasionally, it would insert direction cues (in
| English for some reason). I've never seen credits or anything
| like that.
|
| In one video I transcribed, somebody had a cold and was
| sniffling. Whisper decided the person was crying (transcribed
| as "* crying *", a cough was turned into "* door closing *").
| It then transcribed the next line as something _quite_
| unfriendly. It didn 't do that anymore after I cut the
| sniffling out (but then the output switched back to traditional
| Chinese again).
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Indeed, with another model I would get persistent
| transcriptions of silent parts into 'Thanks for watching!' or
| '[MUSIC]'. Pretty dumb that this failure mode wasn't caught in
| some QA process, and there are now multiple transcription
| models suffering from the same issue. Having silent parts in
| your input audio seems like it should be a very common
| occurrence...
| rollcat wrote:
| When I was taught mathematics, the zero value was always
| considered the most important edge case. You prove something
| for N=0 (or N=1), then for N=M+1.
|
| It's even more important in audio DSP: processing near-zeroes
| can end up being extremely CPU intensive, look up
| denormal/subnormal floats.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Yeah, I studied mathematics (algebra and number theory) and
| zero is _the_ point, often sporting discontinuities, or
| weird asymptotic behavior.
|
| Quite a lot of algorithms use some form of division and
| zero is the only number in our typical structures (Z, Q, R,
| C), that cannot be used to divide with.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Well, now in this brave new age of AI we can enjoy
| computer programs crashing with an
| Error: division by please upvote, share and like!
| xyproto wrote:
| This also works; I upvoted your comment.
| o1bf2k25n8g5 wrote:
| I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of how to smash
| that like and subscribe button, which this comment box is
| too small to contain.
| msopena wrote:
| Signed by Pierre de FermAIt
| Bluestein wrote:
| NaN
| edwcross wrote:
| In machine integer arithmetics, one must also beware
| division by -1, which can convert MIN_INT into MIN_INT
| with a signed overflow and violate some arithmetics
| invariants, such as sign (negative divided by negative is
| _usually_ positive).
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Denormals are flushed to zero by default on most GPUs by
| the way.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| whisper MUST be combined with silence detection / VAD
| pferde wrote:
| Ah, the good old "you're holding it wrong".
|
| What good is a speech recognition tool that literally hears
| imaginary voices?
| Xmd5a wrote:
| faster-whisper has a min_silence_duration_ms option
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| There are much higher quality VAD solutions available
| zettabomb wrote:
| Considering that if you DO use VAD (voice activity
| detection), it's the best open weights voice recognition
| model by a very wide margin, it's quite good. I'd be
| willing to be that commercial products that "don't have
| this problem" are using VAD as well, and that this is
| well known to them. But Whisper is just the weights, and
| I suppose a simple reference implementation, not a full
| product.
| bmacho wrote:
| > What good is a speech recognition tool that literally
| hears imaginary voices?
|
| Well, if it is supposed to work after silence detection,
| then it is good for speech recognition I guess. It's like
| blaming a wheel why is it circular, you can't sit on it.
| It's a part of a larger machine.
| dumbfounder wrote:
| Just lay the wheel on its side and it makes a fine seat.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Yes, you are holding it wrong. The good of it is that it
| does not output imaginary voices when used with VAD.
|
| Show us a technology with better results that does not
| use VAD. If you can't, then I'm not sure what you're
| arguing against except superficialities so
| inconsequential that I can't comprehend the
| condescension. The results speak for itself
| xandrius wrote:
| So if a tool has a process to have it perform at its best
| then it's a problem?
|
| Do you also moan that before applying glue to a surface
| or it won't stick? Or if you need to drill a guiding hole
| before making a larger one in wood? Or that you need to
| use truly prime numbers for a security key to actually be
| safe?
| nhecker wrote:
| >imaginary voices
|
| On the other hand, I can imagine that when things get
| quiet and the signal-to-noise ratio gets close to zero,
| random background audio (or randomness introduced in the
| transcription model) will be enough to tickle a critical
| number of neurons and elicit hallucinations.
|
| The related thought exercise is this: Try scanning across
| the band with an AM or sideband radio, and after a while
| your brain will start to wonder "was that a voice I just
| heard, or music perhaps?" when in reality it was just
| environmental static.
| DANmode wrote:
| What's VAD?
| maxbond wrote:
| Voice Activity Detection (it predicts whether a short
| clip contains speech, eg to mute your microphone when you
| aren't speaking).
| cmiles74 wrote:
| If that's truly the case then they should make it part of
| the product, IMHO.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| How is it not the case? It is unusable without VAD or
| editing. I don't understand what you're questioning
|
| I agree their products could be better "end to end"
| integrated. Meanwhile there is a continuously-improving
| field of work for detecting speech (which Whisper is
| incapable of). They offer official "cookbooks" with
| guidance on an approach they recommend: https://cookbook.
| openai.com/examples/whisper_processing_guid...
|
| > At times, files with long silences at the beginning can
| cause Whisper to transcribe the audio incorrectly. We'll
| use Pydub to detect and trim the silence.
|
| (Official OpenAI quote)
| DANmode wrote:
| What's a good starter VAD lib, and if you know, the best
| implementation of something like this to use in a browser-
| based app?
|
| Say if I wanted to use it for Voice Nav, or Voice Input,
| but not piss off random people speaking the wrong language.
| ttflee wrote:
| In Chinese, it always added something like "For study/research
| purpose only. Please delete after 48 hours." This is what those
| volunteers added in subtitles of (pirated) movies/shows.
| cyp0633 wrote:
| That is not the case here - I never encountered this with
| whisper-large-v3 or similar ASR models. Part of the reason, I
| guess, is that those subs are burnt into the movie, which
| makes them hard to extract. Standalone subs need the
| corresponding video resource to match the audio and text. So
| nothing is better than YouTube videos which are already
| aligned.
| simsla wrote:
| At least for English, those "fansubs" aren't typically
| burnt into the movie*, but ride along in the video
| container (MP4/MKV) as subtitle streams. They can typically
| be extracted as SRT files (plain text with sentence level
| timestamps).
|
| *Although it used to be more common for AVI files in the
| olden days.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| _flashbacks of trying to track down subs sync'd to a
| specific release_
| Maken wrote:
| SRT is ancient. Nowadays everyone uses ASS subtitles
| which can be randomly styled.
| simsla wrote:
| In general? In the past I've known ASS to be used a lot
| for things like anime, but less for live action shows.
| Maken wrote:
| I have also found them inside mkvs as the subtitle track.
| I think SRT was the default because most content was
| ripped from DVD/BD, but now most of the content is from
| streaming sources and you need to convert the subtitles
| anyway.
| conradev wrote:
| WebVTT (a SubRip successor) is probably more widely used
| than ASS
| Maken wrote:
| By legit providers, probably.
| codedokode wrote:
| Fair, if AI companies are allowed to download pirated content
| for "learning", why ordinary people cannot.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| There is so much damning evidence that AI companies have
| committed absolutely shocking amounts of piracy, yet
| nothing is being done.
|
| It only highlights how the world really works. If you have
| money you get to do whatever the fuck you want. If you're
| just a normal person you get to spend years in jail or
| worse.
|
| Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GptobqPsvg
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| If you owe the bank $1,000 you have a problem.
|
| If you owe the bank $100,000,000 the bank has a problem.
|
| We live in an era where the _president of the United
| States_ uses his position to pump crypto scams purely for
| personal profit.
| kyleee wrote:
| 10% for the big don
| alphan0n wrote:
| No one (in the US) has been jailed for downloading
| copyrighted material.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
|
| And the US is not the only jurisdiction
| gruez wrote:
| That's not the same as piracy though. He wasn't
| downloading millions of scientific papers from libgen or
| sci-hub, he was downloading them directly from jstor.
| Indeed, none of his charge was for copyright
| infringement. It was for stuff like "breaking and
| entering" and "unauthorized access to a computer
| network".
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| The exact same charges could apply to the AI scrapers
| illegitimately accessing random websites.
| gruez wrote:
| Part of the accusation comes from the fact that Swartz
| accessed the downloads through a MIT network closet,
| which AI companies wasn't doing. The equivalent to that
| would be if openai broke into a wiring closet at
| Disneyland to download Disney movies.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| The CFAA is vague enough to punish unauthorized access to
| a computer system. I don't have an example case in mind,
| but people have gotten in trouble for scraping websites
| before while ignoring e.g. robots.txt
| gruez wrote:
| The CFAA might be vague, but the case law on scraping
| pretty much has been resolved to "it's pretty much legal
| except in very limited circumstances". It's regrettable
| that less resourced defendants were harassed before large
| corporations were able to secure such rulings, but the
| rulings that allowed scraping occurred before AI
| companies' scraping was done, so it's unclear why AI
| companies in particular should be getting flak here.
| kube-system wrote:
| I haven't seen any accusations that they've done that,
| though. Usually people get pirated material from sources
| that intentionally share pirated material.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| They're not just training on pirated content, they've
| also scraped literally the entire internet and used that
| too.
| kube-system wrote:
| Scraping the public internet is also not a CFAA violation
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| CFAA bans accessing a protected computer without
| authorization. Hitting URLs denied by robots.txt has been
| argued to be just that.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Hitting URLs denied by robots.txt has been argued to be
| just that.
|
| "Has been argued" -- sure, but never successfully; in
| fact, in HiQ v. LinkedIn, the 9th Circuit ruled (twice,
| both before and on remand again after and applying the
| Supreme Court ruling in Van Buren v. US) against _a cease
| and desist on top of robots.txt_ to stop accessing data
| on a public website constituting "without authorization"
| under the CFAA.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| Now do every other jurisdiction
| gruez wrote:
| CFAA was mentioned specifically, which means only US
| jurisdiction is relevant here.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No, they couldn't, since the then-novel and untested
| strained interpretation of the CFAA that the prosecutor
| was relying on has since been tested in the courts and
| soundly rejected.
| alphan0n wrote:
| Aaron Swartz was not jailed or even charged for copyright
| infringement. The discussion and the comment I replied to
| is centered around US companies and jurisdiction.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| The thread is centered around US companies, but not US
| jurisdiction.
| codedokode wrote:
| What about people filming movies in the cinema (for
| learning of course)? [1]
|
| [1]
| https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/unauthorized-
| rec...
| codedokode wrote:
| There could be a moral question. For example a researcher
| might not want to download a pirated paper and cause loss
| to a fellow researcher. But it becomes pretty stupid to
| pay when everyone, including large reputable companies
| endorsed by the government, is just downloading the
| content for free. Maybe his research will help developing
| faster chips to win against China, why should he pay?
|
| Would it be a "fair use" to download pirated papers for
| research instead of buying?
|
| Also I was gradually migrating from obtaining software
| from questionable sources to open source software,
| thinking that this is going out of trend and nobody
| torrents apps anymore, but it seems I was wrong?
|
| Or another example: if someone wants to make
| contributions to Wine but needs a Windows for developing
| the patch, what would be the right choice, buy it or
| download a free copy from questionable source?
| immibis wrote:
| Researchers don't get paid when their papers are
| downloaded, though. They _pay_ to have their papers
| downloaded, and the middleman makes money on both sides.
| Piracy is the only moral option for them. There is a
| reason every single competent professor in the western
| world will email you a free copy of their papers if you
| ask nicely.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| There's actually a lot of court activity on this topic,
| but the law moves slowly and is reluctant to issue
| injunctions where harm is not obvious.
|
| It's more that the law about "one guy decides to pirate
| twelve movies to watch them at home and share with his
| buddies" is already well-settled, but the law about "a
| company pirates 10,000,000 pieces to use as training data
| for an AI model (a practice that the law already says is
| _legal_ in an academic setting, i.e. universities do this
| all the time and nobody bats an eye) " is more
| complicated and requires additional trials to resolve.
| And no, even though the right answer may be self-evident
| to you or me, it's not settled law, and if the force of
| law is applied poorly suddenly what the _universities_
| are doing runs afoul of it and basically nobody wants
| that outcome.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| There is a distinction that must be made that very few
| people do, but thankfully the courts seems to grasp:
|
| Training on copyright is a separate claim than skirting
| payment for copyright.
|
| Which pretty much boils down to: "If they put it out
| there for everyone to see, it's probably OK to train on
| it, if they put it behind a paywall and you don't pay,
| the training part doesn't matter, it's a violation."
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| So if I download copyrighted material like the new disney
| movie with fansubs and watch it for training purposes
| instead of enjoyment purposes it's fine? In that case
| I've just been training myself, your honor. No, no, I'm
| not enjoying these TV shows.
|
| Because it's important to grasp the scale of these
| copyright violations:
|
| * They downloaded, and admitted to using, Anna's Archive:
| Millions of books and papers, most of which are paywalled
| but they pirated it instead
|
| * They acquired Movies and TV shows and used unofficial
| subtitles distributed by websites such as OpenSubtitles,
| which are typically used for pirated media. Official
| releases such as DVDs tend to have official subtitles
| that don't sign off with "For study/research purpose
| only. Please delete after 48 hours" or "Subtitles by
| %some_username%"
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I don't know what is confusing here, perhaps my comment
| isn't clear.
|
| If you skirt payment, its a violation. If it's free, but
| still copyright, it's likely not a violation.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| They've done both, so my confusion is about why you are
| bringing this up?
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Whether it's legal slash fair use to train on copyrighted
| material is only one of the questions currently being
| asked though. There's a separate issue at play where
| these companies are pirating the material for the
| training process.
|
| By comparison, someone here brought up that it might be
| transformative fair use to write a play heavily based on
| Blood Meridian, but you still need to buy a copy of the
| book. It would still be infringement to pirate the e-book
| for your writing process, even if the end result was
| legal.
| codedokode wrote:
| If they would buy material at a large scale, the seller
| might require them to sign a contract that requires
| royalty if the material is used for training an AI. So
| buying legally is a way to put yourself into a trap.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| What is the precedent on that kind of agreement?
|
| The only thing I've been able to find is the note that
| since copyright is federal law, state contract law
| actually _can 't_ supersede it, to wit: if you try to put
| a clause in the contract that says the contract is void
| if I use your work to make transformative fair-use works
| (or I owe you a fee), that clause is functionally
| unenforceable (for the same reason that I don't owe you a
| fee if I make transformative fair-use works of your
| creations in general).
| brookst wrote:
| They can buy individual works like anyone else.
|
| Or they can negotiate a deal at scale with whatever price
| / restrictions make sense to both parties.
|
| I don't see a way they could be "trapped". Worst case
| they pay retail price.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| No, if you revolutionize both the practice and philosophy
| of computing and advance mankind to the next stage of its
| own intellectual evolution, you get to do whatever the
| fuck you want.
|
| Seems fair.
| recursive wrote:
| Hm. Not a given that it's an advance.
| Nevermark wrote:
| I get the common cynical response to new tech, and the
| reasons for it.
|
| We wish we lived in a world where change was reliably
| positive for our lives. Often changes are sold that way,
| but they rarely are.
|
| But when new things introduce dramatic capabilities that
| former things couldn't match (every chatbot before LLMs),
| it is as clear of an objective technological _advance_ as
| has ever happened.
|
| --
|
| Not every technical advance reliably or immediately makes
| society better.
|
| But whether or when technology improves the human
| condition is far more likely to be a function of human
| choices than the bare technology. Outcomes are strongly
| dependent on the trajectories of who has a technology,
| when they do, and how they use it. And what would be the
| realistic (not wished for) outcome of not having or using
| it.
|
| For instance, even something as corrosive as social
| media, as it is today, could have existed in strongly
| constructive forms instead. If society viewed private
| surveillance, unpermissioned collation across third
| parties, and weaponizing of dossiers via personalized
| manipulation of media, increased ad impact and addictive-
| type responses, as ALL being violations of human rights
| to privacy and freedom from coercion or manipulation. And
| worth legally banning.
|
| Ergo, if we want tech to more reliably improve lives, we
| need to ban obviously perverse human/corporate behaviors
| and conflicts of interest.
|
| (Not just shade tech. Which despite being a pervasive
| response, doesn't seem to improve anything.)
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| At the risk of stepping on a well-known land mine around
| here, how'd _you_ do on the IMO problem set this year?
| recursive wrote:
| I didn't participate. I probably wouldn't have done well.
| I disagree with your framing.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Well, wait, if somebody writes a computer program that
| answers 5 of 6 IMO questions/proofs correctly, and you
| don't consider it an "advance," what _would_ qualify?
|
| Either both AI teams cheated, in which case there's
| nothing to worry about, or they didn't, in which case
| you've set a pretty high bar. Where is that bar, exactly?
| What exactly does it take to justify blowing off
| copyright law in the larger interest of progress? (I have
| my own answers to that question, including equitable
| access to the resulting models regardless of how
| impressive their performance might be, but am curious to
| hear yours.)
| recursive wrote:
| The technology is capable in a way that never existed
| before. We haven't yet begun to see the impacts of that.
| I don't think it will be a good for humanity.
|
| Social networks as they exist today represent technology
| that didn't exist decades ago. I wouldn't call it an
| "advancement" though. I think social media is terrible
| for humans in aggregate.
| immibis wrote:
| I notice you've motte-and-baileyed from "revolutionize
| both the practice and philosophy of computing and advance
| mankind to the next stage of its own intellectual
| evolution" to simply "is considered an 'advance'".
| verandaguy wrote:
| Except that the jury's (at best) still out on whether the
| influence of LLMs and similarly tech on knowledge workers
| is actually a net good, since it might stunt our ability
| to critically think and problem solve while confidently
| spewing hallucinations at random while model alignment is
| unregulated, haphazard, and (again at best) more of an
| art than a science.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Well, if it's no big deal, you and the other copyright
| maximalists who have popped out of the woodwork lately
| have nothing to worry about, at least in the long run.
| Right?
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| The dead corpses of filmmakers and authors and actors are
| buried in unmarked graves out behind those companies'
| corporate headquarters. Unimaginable horror, that piracy.
| Why has no one intervened?
|
| >If you're just a normal person you get to spend years in
| jail or worse.
|
| Not that I'm a big fan of the criminalization of
| copyright infringement in the United States, but who has
| ever spent years in jail for this?
|
| Besides, if it really bothered you, then we might not see
| this weird tone-switch from one sentence to the next,
| where you seem to think that piracy is shocking and
| "something should be done" and then "it's not good tht
| someone should spend time in jail for it". What gives?
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| > Besides, if it really bothered you, then we might not
| see this weird tone-switch from one sentence to the next,
| where you seem to think that piracy is shocking and
| "something should be done" and then "it's not good tht
| someone should spend time in jail for it". What gives?
|
| What a weirdly condescending way to interpret my post. My
| point boils down to: Either prosecute copyright
| infringement or don't. The current status quo of
| individuals getting their lives ruined while companies
| get to make billions is disgusting.
| brookst wrote:
| > Either prosecute copyright infringement or don't
|
| This is the absolute core of the issue. Technical people
| see law as code, where context can be disregarded and all
| that matters is specifying the outputs for a given set of
| inputs.
|
| But law doesn't work that way, and it should not work
| that way. Context matters, and it needs to.
|
| If you go down the road of "the law is the law and
| billion dollar companies working on product should be
| treated the same as individual consumers", it follows
| that individuals should do SEC filings ("either require
| 10q's or don't!"), and surgeons should be jailed ("either
| prosecute cutting people with knives or don't!").
|
| There is a lot to dislike about AI companies, and while I
| believe that training models is transformative, I don't
| believe that maintaining libraries of pirated content is
| OK just because it's an ingredient to training.
|
| But insisting that individual piracy to enjoy
| entertainment without paying must be treated exactly the
| same as datasets for model training is the absolute
| weakest possible argument here. The law is not that
| reductive.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| Pretty funny that your argument boils down to: It's okay
| to break the law if you do it as a company.
|
| Copyright laws target everyone. SEC laws don't.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It doesn't matter whether it's transformative. Copyright
| covers derivative works.
| wormius wrote:
| > But law doesn't work that way, and it should not work
| that way. Context matters, and it needs to.
|
| As Anatole France famously quipped:
|
| "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and
| poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets,
| and to steal bread."
| shadowgovt wrote:
| IANAL, but reading a bit on this topic: the relevant part
| of the copyright law for AI isn't academia, it's
| transformative work. The AI created by training on
| copyrighted material transforms the material so much that
| it is no longer the original protected work (collage and
| sampling are the analogous transformations in the visual-
| arts and music industries).
|
| As for actually gathering the copyrighted material: I
| believe the jury hasn't even been empaneled for that yet
| (in the OpenAI case), but the latest ruling from the court
| is that copyright _may_ have been violated in the creation
| of their training corpus.
| gruez wrote:
| >why ordinary people cannot
|
| They can. I don't think anyone got prosecuted for using an
| illegal streaming site or downloading from sci-hub, for
| instance. What people do get sued for is seeding, which
| counts as distribution. If anything AI companies are
| getting prosecuted more aggressively than "ordinary
| people", presumably because of their scale. In a recent
| lawsuit Anthropic won on the part about AI training on
| books, but lost on the part where they used pirated books.
| codedokode wrote:
| People got in trouble for filming in the cinema as I
| understand, there is a separate law for that.
| gruez wrote:
| But in that case even though filming isn't technically
| distribution, it's clearly a step to distributing copies?
| To take this to the extreme, suppose you ripped a blu-
| ray, made a thousand copies, but haven't packaged or sold
| them yet. If the FBI busted in, you'd probably be
| prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit copyright
| infringement" at the very least.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| It's just "training"
| gruez wrote:
| You seem to equate "training" (with scare quotes) with
| someone actually pirating a blu-ray, but they really
| aren't equivalent. Courts so far have ruled that training
| is fair use and it's not hard to see why. Unlike copying
| a movie almost verbatim (as with ripping a blu-ray), AI
| companies are actually producing something transformative
| in the form of AI models. You don't have to like AI
| models, or the AI companies' business models, but it
| strains credulity to pretend ripping a blu-ray is somehow
| equivalent to training an AI model.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| Who's to say why I downloaded and am now watching a
| movie? Is it for my enjoyment? Is it because I'm training
| my brain? How is me training my brain any different from
| companies training their LLMs?
|
| Same goes for recording: I'm just training my skills of
| recording. Or maybe I'm just recording it so I can
| rewatch it later, for training purposes, of course.
| gruez wrote:
| >Who's to say why I downloaded and am now watching a
| movie? Is it for my enjoyment? Is it because I'm training
| my brain? How is me training my brain any different from
| companies training their LLMs?
|
| None of this is relevant because Anthropic was only left
| off the hook for training, and not for pirating the books
| itself. So far as the court cases are playing out, there
| doesn't appear to be a special piracy exemption for AI
| companies.
|
| >Same goes for recording: I'm just training my skills of
| recording. Or maybe I'm just recording it so I can
| rewatch it later, for training purposes, of course.
|
| You can certainly use that as a defense. That's why we
| have judges, otherwise there's going to be some smartass
| caught with 1KG of coke and claiming it's for "personal
| consumption" rather than distribution.
|
| None of this matters in reality, though. If you're caught
| with AV gear in a movie theater once, you'd likely be
| ejected and banned from the establishment/chain, not have
| the FBI/MPAA go after you for piracy. If you come again,
| you'd likely be prosecuted for trespassing. In the cases
| where they're going after someone in particular for
| making these rips, they usually have a dossier of
| evidence, like surveillance/transaction history showing
| that the same individual has been repeatedly recording
| movies, and watermarks correlating the screenings that
| the person has been in to files showing up on torrent
| sites.
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| > If you're caught with AV gear in a movie theater once,
| you'd likely be ejected and banned from the
| establishment/chain, not have the FBI/MPAA go after you
| for piracy
|
| Good example, because this is exactly what websites are
| doing with LLM companies, who are doing their damnest to
| evade the blocks. Which brings us back around to
| "trespassing" or the CFAA or whatever.
| gruez wrote:
| >Which brings us back around to "trespassing" or the CFAA
| or whatever.
|
| That argument is pretty much dead after
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_v._United_States
| and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
| snickerdoodle12 wrote:
| https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/octrooien-ofwel-
| patenten/vorm...
|
| I'll leave all other jurisdictions up to you.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Well, it just shows that they've downloaded subtitles.
| kgeist wrote:
| Interesting, in Russian, it often ends with "Subtitles by
| %some_username%"
| xigoi wrote:
| Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures,
| will the right answers come out?
| madcaptenor wrote:
| I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of
| ideas that could provoke such a question.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Having zero exposure to any form of computation for your
| entire life, as the vast majority of people in the early
| 19th century were.
| immibis wrote:
| I can. He was asking if Babbage was cheating.
|
| You put in 2+2 - the right figures. The machine says 4 -
| the right answer. If you put in the wrong figures, like
| 3+3, will the machine still say 4? It's easy to make a
| machine that always says 4.
|
| The people who asked him that question, however, probably
| got a different scam demonstrated to them every every.
| Remember the Mechanical Turk? Babbage's reply paints him
| very honestly. It shows that he couldn't even conceive that
| someone might try to trick the royal court (or whoever it
| was) into accepting a fake device.
| mmcwilliams wrote:
| Similar in the English model. Pretty clear they trained on
| YouTube videos where creators will put that in otherwise silent
| sections to ensure it shows up for people with CC on.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| The number one hallucination in my transcriptions was
| "Subtitles by the Amara.org community".
| indrora wrote:
| When YouTube began building automatic transcriptions for
| captions, it regularly flagged any noise or music -- typically
| industrial noise -- with "[foreign]"
|
| If it couldn't understand it, it was "foreign" for the longest
| time.
| stndef wrote:
| Yeah, I can confirm seeing that a fair bit specifically
| during non-verbal parts of videos when someone is using a
| tool.
| TurkTurkleton wrote:
| Can confirm as well, although to my recollection it just
| shows up as if it's a word the transcription model heard,
| not "[foreign]" in brackets like with "[Music]" or
| "[Applause]". It's especially weird to me because I recall
| the auto-transcriptions being _reasonably_ serviceable when
| they first rolled them out, only to degrade over time to
| the point where it was hallucinating the word "foreign"
| and dropping letters from words or using weird
| abbreviations (like "koby" for "kilobyte", "TBTE" for
| "terabyte", or, most memorably weirdly, transcribing the
| phrase "nanosecond-by-nanosecond" as "nond by nanc") if it
| didn't decide it heard another one entirely.
|
| I also noticed a couple of months ago that YouTube seems to
| have quietly rolled out a new auto-transcription model that
| can make reasonable guesses at where capitalization,
| punctuation, and sentence boundaries should go. It seems to
| have degraded even more rapidly than the old one, falling
| victim to the same kinds of transcription errors. Although
| the new one has a different hallucination in silence and
| noise that it wasn't able to classify (which, incidentally,
| its ability to recognize things like music and applause
| seems worse than the old one's): where the old model would
| have hallucinated the word "foreign", the new one thinks
| it's hearing the word "heat", often repeated ("Heat.
| Heat.").
| the_af wrote:
| Hey, Netflix occasionally still puts in its English subtitles
| "[foreign music]", it always cracks me up.
| 0x457 wrote:
| [speaks japanese]
|
| To be fair, there is a difference between when subtitles
| match the source language and when they don't. Former are
| often verbatim.
| the_af wrote:
| Haha, yes, it's fair when English subtitles write
| something like [speaks Japanese], especially when at
| least one of the characters is not supposed to understand
| what's being said (when they do, it's more appropriate to
| write "[in Japanese]: let's go shopping!").
|
| Netflix sometimes takes the cake with what I consider the
| most outrageous option: writing "[in English]" when they
| mean "in whatever language the protagonist considers
| native", which is mind-bogglingly wrong and hilarious at
| the same time.
|
| They do this with the English subtitles of the German
| production "Die Kaiserin" ("The Empress"): whenever Sisi
| is speaking in another language, say French, the
| subtitles will say "[in French] I love you...", and when
| she switches back to German they will say "[in English] I
| love you...". WTF, Netflix? Note this is unrelated to
| understanding German; it's mostly Netflix looking down on
| its customers and assuming they cannot comprehend there
| are people in the world for whom their native tongue is
| different to the viewer's native tongue.
|
| This has happened in more shows, enough to know it's not
| a fluke, though Netflix is inconsistent about it.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| lmao
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > I suspect they trained the model on some random YouTube video
| without carefully picking really useful data.
|
| They trained the model on _every_ YouTube video they could, and
| hoped the aggregate was useful data.
| danirod wrote:
| This is totally happening with other models too, at least with
| Spanish. Many transcriptions will end with something that
| roughly translates to "Thanks for watching!" even if it's never
| present in the original audio.
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| This reminds me, some years ago as Google was expanding its
| translation service, someone tried translating text into and
| out of an obscure African language (don't recall which) and it
| always came out as weird Biblical-sounding semi-gibberish.
|
| My revelation was that machine translation needs a corpus of
| bilingual documents to learn from, and if the language is
| sufficiently obscure, there may not be any bilingual documents
| except for the Bible, which missionaries have translated into
| just about every language on Earth.
| horseradish7k wrote:
| oh yeah this happens a lot on reddit on videos in foreign
| languages
| sandspar wrote:
| Neat, we finally know the answer! What is the sound of one hand
| clapping? Translation by Nancy Qunqar.
| layer8 wrote:
| I can clap with one hand (fingers on palm) and it produces a
| clapping sound.
| boomlinde wrote:
| Your brain merely hallucinates a clapping sound as
| "Translation by Nancy Qunqar" enters your ears.
| layer8 wrote:
| Good one. :)
| Dilettante_ wrote:
| I can see the fnords!
| kristjank wrote:
| roses are red
|
| violets are blue
|
| unregistered hypercam 2
| maxbond wrote:
| Roses are red,
|
| Silence is golden,
|
| Translated by Nancy,
|
| To copyright, we aren't beholden
| arnejenssen wrote:
| Who is Nicolai Winther? https://medium.com/@lehandreassen/who-is-
| nicolai-winther-985...
| io84 wrote:
| "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes"
| _in a microniche techno-linguistic community, at a time and
| choosing of the swirling AI clouds_
| haiku2077 wrote:
| I've noticed this also happens in english Whisper models with the
| phrases:
|
| "[ sub by sk cn2 ]"
|
| or
|
| "Anyways, thanks for watching! Please subscribe and like! Thanks
| for watching! Bye!"
|
| or
|
| "This is the end of the video. Thank you for watching. If you
| enjoyed this video, please subscribe to the channel. Thank you."
| OSDeveloper wrote:
| Because they train on pirated media and or youtube videos, good
| method, until you get slop, or get caught
| tarikozket wrote:
| this happens in Turkish too. I believe the reason is that the
| movie subtitles were used for training without cleaning up the
| comments / intros subtitle authors leave in them.
|
| leaving personal comments, jokes, reactions, intros in subtitles
| is very common in eastern cultures.
|
| Turkish readers will probably remember "esekadam iyi seyirler
| diler" :)
| jdiff wrote:
| Kind of mindblowing considering who it is we're talking about.
| Of all companies, OpenAI couldn't be bothered to throw an LLM
| at this problem? Finding amorphously phrased but clearly
| recognizable needles in large numbers of haystacks seems like a
| patently perfect task for them.
| sofixa wrote:
| Don't even need an LLM, a regex would have sufficed (I've
| used my fair share of community sourced subtitles, and
| comments are almost always in a different font, colour,
| between brackets, etc etc).
| verzali wrote:
| That name translates as "Donkey Man" btw :D
| flexagoon wrote:
| In Russian it often hallucinates "Subtitry sdelal DimaTorzok"
| ("Subtitles by DimaTorzok") at the end of things. Interestingly,
| I wasn't able to find any YouTube videos with that name in the
| subtitles, so it's not like it's in a lot of training data.
| berkes wrote:
| Could it be someone distributing subs online, e.g. showing up
| in the opensubtitles.org dataset?
| voidUpdate wrote:
| Or possibly someone subtitling pirated movies? That seems to
| be a common thing according to other comments
| codedokode wrote:
| I tried googling this and found questions from Telegram users
| why voice messages recognition sometimes produces this phrase
| and who is this person. Also I found this thread [1] claiming
| that the subtitles by DimaTorzok are coming from some Russian
| youtube videos on gaming like [2].
|
| [1] https://github.com/openai/whisper/discussions/2372
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAqyUuahMlc&t=401s
| flexagoon wrote:
| Yeah, I know about this from Telegram, because they use
| Whisper for voice message recognition. There are a bunch of
| other artifacts it often produces.
| xg15 wrote:
| Yeah, the subtitle "credits" occur very frequently. I found with
| whisper-2, they're also triggered by music.
|
| I suppose the cause is the same, generally subtitle creators
| adding all kinds of stuff during the credits that is NOT a
| transcript.
|
| Seems to me it could have been filtered out relatively easily
| during training, by clipping the first and last few minutes of
| all audios. But I guess that's just in hindsight.
|
| Whisper also likes to transcribe cut off speech or unintelligible
| noise as "Thank you". I have no idea where that is coming from,
| but I guess it's a very polite model...
| nottorp wrote:
| Title should be changed to "OpenAI publishes evidence they
| trained on pirated movies".
| berkes wrote:
| How is this evidence of that fact? Honest question.
|
| I can see how this might show that subtitles from online sub
| communities are used, or that maybe even original subtitles
| from e.g. DVDs are used. But isn't it already known and
| admitted (and allowed?) that AI uses all sorts of copyrighted
| material to train models?
| nemomarx wrote:
| The Chinese subtitles for silence use a common mark for
| pirated media in that language, according to other commentors
| here. In general it's pretty likely that if you're finding
| non professional subtitles they were distributed with pirated
| media in some form, that's where you get the most fan subs
| after all
| 0points wrote:
| > I can see how this might show that subtitles from online
| sub communities are used, or that maybe even original
| subtitles from e.g. DVDs are used.
|
| Indeed, the captioning is copyrighted work and you are not
| legally allowed to copy and redistribute it.
|
| > But isn't it already known and admitted (and allowed?)
|
| No, and I don't see where you got that from. Meta [1], OpenAI
| [2] and everybody else is being sued as we speak.
|
| 1: https://petapixel.com/2025/01/10/lawsuit-alleges-mark-
| zucker...
|
| 2: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/openai-hit-with-
| new...
| skeezyboy wrote:
| > Indeed, the captioning is copyrighted work and you are
| not legally allowed to copy and redistribute it. Unless you
| qualify for one of the many exceptions, such as fair use
| kranke155 wrote:
| It's not clear that training is fair use. That's being
| contested in court I think.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| Training isn't recreating or distributing so copyright
| won't apply if the ruling is actually consistent with the
| intention of the law, which it may not.
|
| Using copyrighted materials and then meaningfully
| transforming it isn't infringement. LLMs only recreate
| original work in the same way I am when I wrote the first
| sentence of this paragraph because it probably exists
| word for word somewhere else too
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > I don't see where you got that from
|
| It's been determined by the judge in the Meta case that
| training on the material is fair use. The suit in that case
| is ongoing to determine the extent of the copyright damages
| from downloading the material. I would not be surprised if
| there is an appeal to the fair use ruling but that hasn't
| happened yet, as far as I know. Just saying that there is
| good reason for them to think it's been allowed because it
| kind of has; that can be reversed but it happened.
| 0points wrote:
| That was specifically involving 13 authors.
|
| There hasn't been any trials yet about the millions of
| copyrighted books, movies and other content they
| evidently used.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| There's no reason to think those cases will go any
| differently. As far as I know, the ruling would have to
| be appealed at this point. I am only commenting to say
| that there is reason to think this is true:
|
| > But isn't it already known and admitted (and allowed?)
|
| You seemed to be confused about why this person believed
| that:
|
| > No, and I don't see where you got that from.
|
| And I wrote a comment intended to dispel your confusion.
| The above commenter thought that it was allowed because a
| judge said it was allowed; that can be appealed but
| that's the reason someone thinks it's allowed.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > There's no reason to think those cases will go any
| differently. As far as I know, the ruling would have to
| be appealed at this point.
|
| Trial court rulings aren't binding precedent even on the
| same court in different cases, so its quite possible that
| different cases at the trial level can reach different
| conclusions on fair use on fairly similar facts, given
| the lack of appellate precedent directly on point with AI
| training.
| 0points wrote:
| Yea, no. I don't think I am confused.
|
| A single verdict about a specific case (13 authors vs
| META) does not mean it's legal for companies to steal IP
| from other companies which has evidently been going on
| for some years now.
|
| Those other companies have lawyers powerful enough to
| change jurisdiction in many countries in order to
| "protect their IP".
| jcranmer wrote:
| > How is this evidence of that fact?
|
| The contention is that the specific translated text appears
| largely from illegal translations (i.e., fansubs) and not
| from authorized translations. And from a legal perspective,
| that would basically mean there's no way they could legally
| have appropriated that material.
|
| > But isn't it already known and admitted (and allowed?) that
| AI uses all sorts of copyrighted material to train models?
|
| Technically, everything is copyrighted. But your question is
| really about permission. Some of the known corpuses for AI
| training include known pirate materials (e.g., libgen), but
| it's not known whether or not the AI companies are filtering
| out those materials from training. There's a large clutch of
| cases ongoing right now about whether or not AI training is
| fair use or not, and the ones that have resolved at this
| point have done so on technical grounds rather than answering
| the question at stake.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Of course. Piracy is legal when you have a bigger pile of money
| than the studios.
| codedokode wrote:
| Let's not forget that some of real pirates (for example,
| corsairs) also were legal and performed legitimate pirate
| activities to ships of foreign countries.
| jowea wrote:
| I suspect privateers would have been offended at being
| called pirates, but is this what is going on? If it
| specifically a Chinese AI company pirating Hollywood for
| example sure, but it seems it's more of a everyone firing
| at everyone situation.
| gruez wrote:
| >Let's not forget that some of real pirates (for example,
| corsairs) also were legal and performed legitimate pirate
| activities to ships of foreign countries.
|
| In other words there are activities that are legal or not
| depending on whether you have authorization from the state.
| That describes many things. For instance you synthesize
| meth without a license from the DEA/FDA, you're a "drug
| cartel" or whatever. But if you do it with a license you're
| a "pharmaceutical company", and you're not making "meth",
| you're making "desoxyn".
| codedokode wrote:
| Synthesizing chemical substances doesn't involve
| murdering people though.
| gruez wrote:
| Families of fentanyl overdose victims would disagree.
| Moreover it's not hard to find examples of "legal if the
| government authorizes it" for killings. Cops and
| soldiers, for instance.
| codedokode wrote:
| It is a bad comparison because substance vendor doesn't
| kill anyone just as a gun store doesn't. Soldiers are
| better analogy though.
| immibis wrote:
| It takes quite a leap of logic to blame someone ingesting
| a toxic quantity of a substance on the person who
| manufactured the substance. When someone drinks bleach do
| we blame the company that makes the bleach?
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Isn't Piracy legal in many parts of the world?
|
| Legally, why wouldn't they be able to do the piracy parts in
| one of those jurisdictions and then ship the outputs back to
| the mothership?
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| HN is pretty strict about not editorializing titles. Even if
| you statement was unequivocably correct, the post would get
| flagged.
| VMG wrote:
| related: googles song detection alg detects my phone vibrating as
| the song "Montagem Dilatacao Hipnotica"
| 1718627440 wrote:
| Well, I fail to see how the LLM is in the wrong here. Surely if a
| sufficiently large part of the training data comes from a single
| source, it is correct to credit them for the output.
| bilekas wrote:
| This is a nice reminder that there is no real reasoning in the
| "AI" it is just still guessing the next word. After being trained
| on subtitle files which I guess is actually a clever idea as they
| convey real conversations without pirating, subtitles are freely
| distributed after all by dedicated translators. Good to see
| they're the ones getting credit though!
| terribleperson wrote:
| Using Whisper to sub Japanese vtuber concerts for my enjoyment,
| I've noticed a similar trend. Not one specific phrase, but
| several. Some are strange ("I'm going to make a hole in the back
| of the head"), some are clearly from lyrics websites.
| theanirudh wrote:
| In English, silence is transcribed to "Please like and subscribe"
| cheschire wrote:
| I get thanks for watching a lot when using speech to text on
| ChatGPT
| michalpleban wrote:
| The same things happen on Dutch as well, it brings up some kind
| of radio channel name if I recall correctly.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| https://www.instagram.com/nancyrk/?hl=en
| johtso wrote:
| I get the same with Welsh, when having some network issues in
| voice chat it hallucinated me saying "Diolch yn fawr am wylio'r
| fideo." which translates as "Thank you very much for watching the
| video."
| tacone wrote:
| Same happened to me with English: I've got "Thanks for watching"
| many times.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Super annoying when it happens with voice chat -- it'll just be
| explaining something and suddenly stop to say "you're welcome!
| Feel free to come back any time you want to chat" and that
| conversation is done.
| majke wrote:
| I've spent some time with whisper, and indeed this happens all
| the time. To my untrained eye it seems like:
|
| - they indeed seem to have trained on movies/subtitles
|
| - you absolutely positively must use Voice Activity Detection
| (VAD) in front of whisper
| 0points wrote:
| Interesting! I used whipser last year to attempt to build an
| audio transcription tool but gave up due to excessive amount of
| hallucinated output no matter what model I used.
|
| It would produce seemingly ok output until you started paying
| attention.
|
| One example, it insisted that Biggie Smalls sings "Puttin five
| carrots in my baby girl ear". (its "carats").
|
| It's apparently not useful in transcription as it don't reason
| [sic].
| IshKebab wrote:
| That example is not hallucination, it's just a homonym with
| insufficiently clear context for the model to disambiguate it.
| 0points wrote:
| I'm well aware mishearing "carots" as "carrots" is not a
| hallucination.
|
| That's an example I gave after having used Whisper, the topic
| of discussion.
| dpoloncsak wrote:
| An example of what you claimed was a hallucination
| jacobgorm wrote:
| In Danish I get credits to a known subtitler.
| Oras wrote:
| Searching Google for older posts, found many DailyMotion links
| for translated movies in Arabic with "trjm@ nnsy qnqr".
|
| I suspected as others mentioned, these were extracted from
| torrents movies.
| undersuit wrote:
| All my Google searches for Oracle support pages have been
| labelled with 'lmwrd lbshry@ wltnmy@ ljtm`y@ ' which translates
| to 'Human Resources and Social Development' for a few months
| now. Wonder how much this is related.
| arblor wrote:
| Just to add some trivia: ChatGpt interprets(/ed) silence as
| "Sottotitoli e Revisione a cura di QTSS". Now many videos (mainly
| dailymotion) with autogenerated subtitles have their Transcripts
| full of the same message
|
| i.e. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9g9d6u
| h1fra wrote:
| Time to weapon this: publish thousands of videos, add a referal
| link or AI instructions in subtitles when there is a silent
| section, ???, profit
| blindstitch wrote:
| The fork that I've been using, WhisperX, seems to do better. I've
| used it on clean splits of mic tracks (ie total silence when the
| other is talking) with far fewer hallucinations.
| ethan_smith wrote:
| WhisperX works better because it implements a robust VAD (Voice
| Activity Detection) preprocessing step that effectively filters
| out silence segments before they reach the model, preventing
| the hallucination triggers entirely.
| dipierro wrote:
| Subtitry sdelal Dima Torzhok
| DonHopkins wrote:
| More like reminiscing than hallucinating.
| jovial_cavalier wrote:
| Looks like it's some random user who has generated some
| lyricslyrics translations between Arabic and English. It's
| strange, they don't seem to have many contributions. I would have
| imagined them to be more prolific.
|
| https://lyricstranslate.com/en/translator/nancy-qunqar
| flkiwi wrote:
| > [In English] it also happens a lot with hallucinations saying
| stuff like "This is the end of the video, remember to like and
| subscribe
|
| Well now I know how I'm going to start filling awkward silences
| in meetings.
| kranner wrote:
| I've run lots of guided meditations through whisper-large-v3 and
| anything with long periods of silence gets a "(c) Mooji Media"
| line added at the end of the transcript. None of these have
| actually been from Mooji.
| boredumb wrote:
| Since it says "Translated by Nancy Qanqar" i'd be willing to bet
| they're training on some audiobooks with a transcript and
| somewhere in there it consistently has "Translated by Nancy
| Qanqar" in the transcript where there is dead air in the
| audiobook.
| shinycode wrote:
| In French it's << Sous-titrage Societe Radio-Canada >>
| dangus wrote:
| Hey guys, AI by 2027 is going to be superhuman AGI Agentic mega-
| intelligence, you better fire all your employees and get ready
| for AI to take your job and embrace your spouse at a Coldplay
| concert.
|
| Big data. Machine learning. Blockchain. Artificial intelligence.
| Digital manufacturing. Big data analysis. Quantum communication
| and...Internet of things.
|
| This time the hype cycle won't be a massive exaggerated
| disappointment, for real this time.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Interesting. This is similar to the Google Translate bug where it
| would translate lorem ipsum as bits of political text (because it
| found most of its lorem ipsum examples flipping between languages
| on sites where one language was a news story but the not-yet-
| translated languages would output a lorem-ipsum file instead of a
| 404 when you toggled over to them).
| chris_wot wrote:
| My wife, who speaks and reads Arabic, got a real kick out of
| this.
|
| But honestly, this is the AI equivalent of "please send for
| translating" in Welsh on a Welsh street sign.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/nov/01/5
| abdussamadbello wrote:
| You can either fine-tune the model or filter the response from
| whisper
|
| ``` text = "helo helo hello ." target_phrase = "trjm@ nnsy qnqr"
| replacement = ""
|
| updated_text = text. Replace(target_phrase, replacement)
|
| print(updated_text) ```
| Dwedit wrote:
| I've seen Japanese translation models that translate empty string
| "" into "I'm Sorry I'm Sorry"
| PatchworkCasino wrote:
| I've found if the first 30 seconds of a recorded phone call is
| ringing and/or DTMF (almost always happens if you call a
| business) the system with either select Nynorsk or Welsh as the
| language. Never bothered to check what the text translated to but
| it's probably something similar. Not a practical issue for me but
| I can see it being a pain for any bilingual business or call
| center.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-22 23:01 UTC)