Salon Viva Technology 2018, Startup connect : Day One

Salon Viva Technology 2018, Startup connect: Day One2018 Chesnot

Facebook’s Portal looked like a slick alternative to the Amazon Echo speaker when it launched it earlier this month, but problems abounded behind the scenes. Facebook had already delayed the video-calling device due to privacy concerns around the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And when it finally did launch, there was a glaring omission: no voice assistant from Facebook. Instead it came with Alexa, meaning anyone who bought the 15.6-inch version for $350 got an awkward gateway to Amazon, whose competing Echo Show cost at least $100 less. It also meant Facebook was blocked from collecting any speech data to train its voice technology further.

Facebook started investing heavily in voice tech from2013 Yet despite that early start, being one the world’s biggest technology companies with 30,275 employees and booking nearly $16 billion in 2017 profits, the company has yet to plant a stake in technology that lets you talk to computers, widely-regarded as the next wave of human-to-machine interfaces.

The omission points to Facebook’s broader difficulties in turning innovative technology into products. Among its previous misfires: Android launcher Home, which shut down in April 2013; virtual currency Credits (closed in Sept. 2013); Snapchat competitors Poke and Slingshot (2014 and 2015) and mobile development platform Parse (2017). In the field of voice, Facebook bought multiple speech-based companies and¬†hired experts specializing in voice technology over the last five years, but it has struggled to turn those investments into useful services, two senior sources who worked at the company told Forbes, largely due to chaotic product priorities and confusion over where researchers should focus their time.¬†“After five years, to still not have a product is shameful,” said one.

Concerted voice efforts came too late by the time Portal became known within the company as a project, some two years ago. “Facebook wanted to use their own speech-to-text technology for Portal, but it was not ready,” said a senior engineering source who spoke to Forbes on the condition of anonymity due to concerns of reputational and legal repercussions. Using Alexa represented “a huge drawback. If you don’t have access to data, it’s hard to progress and learn, and improve things.”

A spokeswoman for Facebook pointed out that Portal customers can activate the device by saying “Hey Portal,” to initiate a call and access device controls, but admitted the company had to partner with Amazon to “provide the range of tools that people have come to expect from a home device.” Facebook did not answer questions from Forbes about its struggles to develop voice technology. In 2016, Facebook’s then head of Messenger, David Marcus, said the company was “not actively working on” voice.

Prices and images of Facebook's Portal device.

Prices and images of Facebook’s Portal device.Image via portal.facebook.com

Facebook has in fact worked on voice technology, but its efforts have suffered from confusing directions between product managers and voice engineers, as well as pressure to move more quickly than the development of voice-recognition technology allows. Product managers often wanted voice-based research to turn into products “within half a year,” said another senior engineering source, who asked not to be named due to non-disclosure agreements. Group-based product reviews held every six months would typically spur a change of direction, from voice-based search, to news transcription, to a voice-assistant for Messenger — all internal projects that never turned into products.

The problem was that building voice technology takes much longer than half a year due to its sheer complexity. Voice data is constantly changing. There are different types of microphones, varying accents and different processing hardware between phones. To build software that recognizes speech, you also need to train it on a database of voices first, then put it out in the wild and train it some more on real voices.

For Apple’s Siri, that process took well over two years. When the iPhone maker first launched Siri in October 2011, it outsourced its speech recognition software to Nuance, a legacy player in voice-recognition. But Apple was loathe to rely on third-parties for a strategic product and set out to build its own software. In 2013 Apple established a voice technology office in Boston (a few miles away from Nuance), and in 2015, the company quietly dropped Nuance as a partner.

Overall in voice, Google is out in front. Its new Pixel 3 smartphone, for instance, includes a digital assistant feature called Duplex that can answer phone calls, and even transcribe them into text in real time. “In the past nine months Google has gone from robotic voices to natural-sounding voices,” adds Peter Cahill, founder of the Irish voice technology startup Voysis. Google was responsible for developing Wavenet, a method for building eerily-human sounding artificial voices and is “years ahead of Amazon.” Cahill described the Silicon Valley hierarchy of voice expertise like so: “Google at the top, then Amazon and Apple, then Facebook.” The latter, he added, was “struggling to get anything out the door.”

To its credit, Facebook got in early on voice technology. In 2013 it bought Mobile Technologies, a startup spun out of Carnegie Mellon University that developed Jibbigo, an early translation app that could listen to speech in one language, and then play it in another language. When Facebook bought the startup and its staff of several dozen researchers for an undisclosed sum, it sparked excited speculation that Facebook would start working on some sort of competitor to Apple’s Siri, or more.

“Voice technology has become an increasingly-important way for people to navigate mobile devices and the web,” Facebook’s Tom Stocky, who led the deal, wrote at the time. “This technology will help us evolve our products to match that evolution.”

Yet even as Facebook went on to double the size of Jibbigo’s team, the company didn’t end up using its voice or speech-recognition expertise. It mainly used Jibbigo’s technology to translate text on users’ posts so it wouldn’t have to rely on Microsoft’s Bing, according to a person involved in the deal. Jibbigo’s voice-recognition technology was “shut down” after one year, the person added, and essentially went to waste. “It didn’t generate enough clicks… [People] don’t have that many friends who speak another language.”

Voice technology is made up of two key components. The first is speech recognition, which carries out transcription; the second is natural-language understanding, which structures the transcription. Together such software is also referred to as voice AI.

In 2014, Facebook bought Wit.ai, a company that specialized in that second component of voice tech, natural-language understanding. Wit.ai licensed software to developers that let them structure the messiness of text into data they could query with software. Rather than combine Wit.ai’s technology with speech-recognition tech, though, Facebook used it to help businesses build chatbots on Facebook Messenger, a monetization initiative that was launched in April 2016.

Facebook’s voice efforts eventually manifested in two areas between 2015 and 2017, according to a source close to those projects: one was transcribing the audio of Facebook videos to make subtitles in real time, and the other was on publishing cutting-edge research at Facebook’s AI division, known as FAIR (Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research). But the latter became part of the problem.

Facebook launched FAIR in December 2013, and the division is often compared to DeepMind, the AI research company that Google bought for an estimated $400 million in2014 At FAIR, a team of 50 researchers work under the respected scientist Yann LeCun to solve long-term problems in AI. Facebook has a second, similar division called Applied Machine Learning (AML), with around 100 staff, responsible for commercializing AI research.

The challenges with these divisions were two fold, according to a senior source who worked on voice at Facebook. They turned into research enclaves that didn’t contribute much to product development, and they lured skilled engineers who would otherwise be working on products. “It created this parallel world of research,” the source said.

Among Facebook’s executive team there were big ideas for using voice technology, such as building a digital assistant like Siri, but such projects required long-term commitments of time and staff. They were also thwarted by a lack of cooperation between researchers and product managers.

Many product managers who worked on Facebook’s voice ambitions didn’t have a clear understanding of the technology involved, the source added. The managers also tended to change every three-to-six months, just as core researchers were gravitating to the prestigious FAIR and AML divisions. The effect was like constantly re-potting a tree, and not giving it a chance to take root and grow. Facebook ultimately lacked “a cohesive team that stays with a problem.”

“Facebook never had a clear strategy for speech recognition or voice,” said the other senior engineering source. “It was never clear why they bought [Jibbigo]. It was a big question internally. We knew there was this team, but nobody knew why they were here.”

Ultimately, the reason why Facebook didn’t make a stronger commitment to building voice technology was simple, they added: “There was no customer. Nobody said to Facebook, ‘I need this technology now.'” That was, of course, until the Portal project started developing internally. Such is the challenge for technology companies who want to keep ahead of the broader competition. Remaining innovative means making a decisive bet on a technology that has yet to be proven out, even when there’s no obvious customer. Facebook didn’t make that call with voice technology until it was too late.

” readability=”198.211980657″>
< div _ ngcontent-c14 ="" innerhtml ="

Salon Viva Technology 2018, Startup connect : Day One

Beauty Parlor Viva Innovation2018, Start-up link: The first day2018 Chesnot

Facebook’s Website appeared like a slick option to the Amazon Echo speaker when it released it previously this month, however issues was plentiful behind the scenes. Facebook(***************** )had actually currently postponed (****************** )the video-calling gadget due to personal privacy issues around the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And when it lastly did launch, there was a glaring omission: no voice assistant from Facebook. Rather it included Alexa, indicating anybody who purchased the156- inch variation for$350 got an uncomfortable entrance to Amazon, whose contending Echo Program expense a minimum of$100(******************* )less It likewise indicated Facebook was obstructed from gathering any speech information to train its voice innovation even more. (************ )

Facebook began investing greatly in voice tech from2013 Yet regardless of that early start, being one the world’s greatest innovation business with30,275 staff members and scheduling almost$(************************************************************************************** )billion in2017 revenues, the business has yet to plant a stake in innovation that lets you talk with computer systems, widely-regarded as the next wave of human-to-machine user interfaces.(************ )(**************** )The omission indicate Facebook’s more comprehensive problems in turning ingenious innovation into items.
Amongst its previous misfires: Android launcher House, which closed down in April2013; virtual currency Credits( closed in Sept. 2013); Snapchat rivals Poke and Slingshot (2014 and 2015) and mobile advancement platform Parse (2017). In the field of voice, Facebook purchased several speech-based business and worked with specialists concentrating on voice innovation over the last 5 years, however it has actually had a hard time to turn those financial investments into helpful services, 2 senior sources who operated at the business informed Forbes , mostly due to disorderly item concerns and confusion over where scientists need to focus their time.” After 5 years, to still not have an item is disgraceful,” stated one.(************ )

Collective voice efforts came far too late by the time Portal ended up being understood within the business as a job, some 2 years back.
” Facebook wished to utilize their own speech-to-text innovation for Website, however it was not all set, ” stated a senior engineering source who spoke with Forbes(******************** )on the condition of privacy due to issues of reputational and legal consequences. Utilizing Alexa represented” a substantial disadvantage. If you do not have access to information, it’s difficult to advance and discover, and enhance things.”

A spokesperson for Facebook mentioned that Website consumers can trigger the gadget by stating” Hey Website,” to start a call and gain access to gadget controls, however confessed the business needed to partner with Amazon to” offer the variety of tools that individuals have actually concerned get out of a house gadget.” Facebook did not respond to concerns from Forbes about its battles to establish voice innovation. In 2016, Facebook’s then head of Messenger, David Marcus, stated the business was” not actively dealing with” voice.

(****** )

(************************* )

Rates and pictures of Facebook’s Website gadget.
Image by means of portal.facebook.com

Facebook has in truth dealt with voice innovation, however its efforts have actually experienced puzzling instructions in between item supervisors and voice engineers, along with pressure to move quicker than the advancement of voice-recognition innovation permits. Item supervisors frequently desired voice-based research study to become items “within half a year,” stated another senior engineering source, who asked not to be called due to non-disclosure contracts. Group-based item evaluations held every 6 months would usually stimulate a turnabout, from voice-based search, to news transcription, to a voice-assistant for Messenger– all internal jobs that never ever developed into items. (************ )(**************** )The issue was that structure voice innovation takes a lot longer than half a year due to its large intricacy. Voice information is continuously altering.
There are various kinds of microphones, differing accents and various processing hardware in between phones. To construct software application that acknowledges speech, you likewise require to train it on a database of voices initially, then put it out in the wild and train it some more on genuine voices.

For Apple’s Siri, that procedure took well over 2 years. When the iPhone maker initially released Siri in October 2011, it outsourced its speech acknowledgment software application to Subtlety, a tradition gamer in voice-recognition. However Apple was loathe to count on third-parties for a tactical item and set out to construct its own software application. In 2013 Apple developed a voice innovation workplace in Boston (a couple of miles far from Subtlety ), and in 2015, the business silently dropped Subtlety as a partner. (************ )(**************** )General in voice, Google is out in front. Its brand-new Pixel 3 mobile phone, for example, consists of a digital assistant function called Duplex that can respond to call, and even transcribe them into text in genuine time.” In the previous 9 months Google has actually gone from robotic voices to natural-sounding voices,” includes Peter Cahill, creator of the Irish voice innovation start-up Voysis. Google was accountable for establishing Wavenet, a technique for structure eerily-human sounding synthetic voices and is” years ahead of Amazon.” Cahill explained the Silicon Valley hierarchy of voice competence thus:” Google at the top, then Amazon and Apple, then Facebook.” The latter, he included, was “having a hard time to get anything out the door.”

To its credit, Facebook got in early voice innovation. In 2013 it purchased Mobile Technologies, a start-up drew out of Carnegie Mellon University that established Jibbigo, an early translation app that might listen to speech in one language, and after that play it in another language. When Facebook purchased the start-up and its personnel of a number of lots scientists for a concealed amount, it stimulated thrilled speculation that Facebook would begin dealing with some sort of rival to Apple’s Siri, or more.

” Voice innovation has actually ended up being an increasingly-important method for individuals to browse mobile phones and the web,” Facebook’s Tom Stocky, who led the offer, composed at the time” This innovation will assist us progress our items to match that development.”

Yet even as Facebook went on to double the size of Jibbigo’s group, the business didn’t wind up utilizing its voice or speech-recognition competence. It generally utilized Jibbigo’s innovation to equate text on users’ posts so it would not need to count on Microsoft’s Bing, according to an individual associated with the offer. Jibbigo’s voice-recognition innovation was” closed down” after one year, the individual included, and basically went to squander.” It didn’t create sufficient clicks … & lsqb; Individuals & rsqb; do not have that numerous pals who speak another language. “(********************************** )

Voice innovation is comprised of 2 essential elements. The very first is speech acknowledgment, which performs transcription; the 2nd is natural-language understanding, which structures the transcription. Together such software application is likewise described as voice AI.(************ )

In (************************************************************** ), Facebook purchased Wit.ai, a business that focused on that 2nd element of voice tech, natural-language understanding. Wit.ai accredited software application to designers that let them structure the messiness of text into information they might query with software application. Instead of integrate Wit.ai’s innovation with speech-recognition tech, however, Facebook utilized it to assist services construct chatbots on Facebook Messenger, a money making effort that was released in April2016

Facebook’s voice efforts ultimately manifested in 2 locations in between 2015 and2017, according to a source near to those jobs: one was transcribing the audio of Facebook videos to make subtitles in genuine time, and the other was on publishing innovative research study at Facebook’s AI department, referred to as FAIR( Facebook Expert System Research Study). However the latter entered into the issue.

Facebook released FAIR in December 2013, and the department is frequently compared to DeepMind, the AI research study business that Google purchased for an approximated$ 400 million in2014 At FAIR, a group of (******************************************************************************** )scientists work under the highly regarded researcher Yann LeCun to fix long-lasting issues in AI. Facebook has a 2nd, comparable department called Applied Artificial intelligence( AML), with around(************************************************************************* )personnel, accountable for advertising AI research study.(************ )(**************** )The obstacles with these departments were 2 fold, according to a senior source who dealt with voice at Facebook. They developed into research study enclaves that didn’t contribute much to item advancement, and they tempted experienced engineers who would otherwise be dealing with items. “It produced this parallel world of research study,” the source stated.(************ )

Amongst Facebook’s executive group there were huge concepts for utilizing voice innovation, such as developing a digital assistant like Siri, however such jobs needed long-lasting dedications of time and personnel. They were likewise warded off by an absence of cooperation in between scientists and item supervisors. (************ )

Numerous item supervisors who dealt with Facebook’s voice aspirations didn’t have a clear understanding of the innovation included, the source included. The supervisors likewise tended to alter every three-to-six months, simply as core scientists were gravitating to the prominent FAIR and AML departments. The impact resembled continuously re-potting a tree, and not offering it an opportunity to settle and grow.
Facebook eventually did not have” a cohesive group that sticks with an issue. “(************ )

“Facebook never ever had a clear technique for speech acknowledgment or voice,” stated the other senior engineering source. “It was never ever clear why they purchased & lsqb; Jibbigo & rsqb;. It was a huge concern internally. We understood there was this group, however no one understood why they were here.”

(**************** )Eventually, the reason that Facebook didn’t make a more powerful dedication to developing voice innovation was basic, they included:” There was no client. No one stated to Facebook,’ I require this innovation now. ‘” That was, naturally, up until the Website job began establishing internally. Such is the difficulty for innovation business who wish to keep ahead of the more comprehensive competitors. Staying ingenious ways making a definitive bet on an innovation that has yet to be shown out, even when there’s no apparent client. Facebook didn’t make that call with voice innovation up until it was far too late.(************ )” readability =”198 211980657″ >(*** )

Salon Viva Technology 2018, Startup connect : Day One(****** ).

Beauty Parlor Viva Innovation2018, Start-up link: The first day2018 Chesnot

Facebook’s Website appeared like a slick option to the Amazon Echo speaker when it released it previously this month, however issues was plentiful behind the scenes. Facebook had actually currently postponed(****************** )the video-calling gadget due to personal privacy issues around the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And when it lastly did launch, there was a glaring omission: no voice assistant from Facebook. Rather it included Alexa, indicating anybody who purchased the 15.6 – inch variation for $350 got an uncomfortable entrance to Amazon, whose contending Echo Program expense a minimum of $100 less It likewise indicated Facebook was obstructed from gathering any speech information to train its voice innovation even more.

Facebook began investing greatly in voice tech from2013 Yet regardless of that early start, being one the world’s greatest innovation business with30,(*********************************************************************** )staff members and scheduling almost $16 billion in2017 revenues, the business has yet to plant a stake in innovation that lets you talk with computer systems, widely-regarded as the next wave of human-to-machine user interfaces.

The omission indicate Facebook’s more comprehensive problems in turning ingenious innovation into items. Amongst its previous misfires: Android launcher House, which closed down in April2013; virtual currency Credits( closed in Sept. 2013); Snapchat rivals Poke and Slingshot (2014 and 2015) and mobile advancement platform Parse (2017).
In the field of voice, Facebook purchased several speech-based business and worked with specialists concentrating on voice innovation over the last 5 years, however it has actually had a hard time to turn those financial investments into helpful services, 2 senior sources who operated at the business informed Forbes , mostly due to disorderly item concerns and confusion over where scientists need to focus their time. “After 5 years, to still not have an item is disgraceful,” stated one.

Collective voice efforts came far too late by the time Portal ended up being understood within the business as a job, some 2 years back. “Facebook wished to utilize their own speech-to-text innovation for Website, however it was not all set,” stated a senior engineering source who spoke with Forbes on the condition of privacy due to issues of reputational and legal consequences. Utilizing Alexa represented “a substantial disadvantage. If you do not have access to information, it’s difficult to advance and discover, and enhance things.”

A spokesperson for Facebook mentioned that Website consumers can trigger the gadget by stating “Hey Website,” to start a call and gain access to gadget controls, however confessed the business needed to partner with Amazon to “offer the variety of tools that individuals have actually concerned get out of a house gadget.” Facebook did not respond to concerns from Forbes about its battles to establish voice innovation. In 2016, Facebook’s then head of Messenger, David Marcus, stated the business was “not actively dealing with” voice.

Prices and images of Facebook's Portal device.

Rates and pictures of Facebook’s Website gadget. Image by means of portal.facebook.com

Facebook has in truth dealt with voice innovation, however its efforts have actually experienced puzzling instructions in between item supervisors and voice engineers, along with pressure to move quicker than the advancement of voice-recognition innovation permits. Item supervisors frequently desired voice-based research study to become items “within half a year,” stated another senior engineering source, who asked not to be called due to non-disclosure contracts. Group-based item evaluations held every 6 months would usually stimulate a turnabout, from voice-based search, to news transcription, to a voice-assistant for Messenger– all internal jobs that never ever developed into items.

The issue was that structure voice innovation takes a lot longer than half a year due to its large intricacy. Voice information is continuously altering. There are various kinds of microphones, differing accents and various processing hardware in between phones. To construct software application that acknowledges speech, you likewise require to train it on a database of voices initially, then put it out in the wild and train it some more on genuine voices.

For Apple’s Siri, that procedure took well over 2 years. When the iPhone maker initially released Siri in October 2011, it outsourced its speech acknowledgment software application to Subtlety, a tradition gamer in voice-recognition. However Apple was loathe to count on third-parties for a tactical item and set out to construct its own software application. In 2013 Apple developed a voice innovation workplace in Boston (a couple of miles far from Subtlety), and in 2015, the business silently dropped Subtlety as a partner.

General in voice, Google is out in front. Its brand-new Pixel 3 mobile phone, for example, consists of a digital assistant function called Duplex that can respond to call, and even transcribe them into text in genuine time. “In the previous 9 months Google has actually gone from robotic voices to natural-sounding voices,” includes Peter Cahill, creator of the Irish voice innovation start-up Voysis. Google was accountable for establishing Wavenet, a technique for structure eerily-human sounding synthetic voices and is “years ahead of Amazon.” Cahill explained the Silicon Valley hierarchy of voice competence thus: “Google at the top, then Amazon and Apple, then Facebook.” The latter, he included, was “having a hard time to get anything out the door.”

To its credit, Facebook got in early voice innovation. In 2013 it purchased Mobile Technologies, a start-up drew out of Carnegie Mellon University that established Jibbigo, an early translation app that might listen to speech in one language, and after that play it in another language. When Facebook purchased the start-up and its personnel of a number of lots scientists for a concealed amount, it stimulated thrilled speculation that Facebook would begin dealing with some sort of rival to Apple’s Siri, or more.

“Voice innovation has actually ended up being an increasingly-important method for individuals to browse mobile phones and the web,” Facebook’s Tom Stocky, who led the offer, composed at the time “This innovation will assist us progress our items to match that development.”

Yet even as Facebook went on to double the size of Jibbigo’s group, the business didn’t wind up utilizing its voice or speech-recognition competence. It generally utilized Jibbigo’s innovation to equate text on users’ posts so it would not need to count on Microsoft’s Bing, according to an individual associated with the offer. Jibbigo’s voice-recognition innovation was “closed down” after one year, the individual included, and basically went to squander. “It didn’t create sufficient clicks … [People] do not have that numerous pals who speak another language.”

Voice innovation is comprised of 2 essential elements. The very first is speech acknowledgment, which performs transcription; the 2nd is natural-language understanding, which structures the transcription. Together such software application is likewise described as voice AI.

In 2014, Facebook purchased Wit.ai, a business that focused on that 2nd element of voice tech, natural-language understanding. Wit.ai accredited software application to designers that let them structure the messiness of text into information they might query with software application. Instead of integrate Wit.ai’s innovation with speech-recognition tech, however, Facebook utilized it to assist services construct chatbots on Facebook Messenger, a money making effort that was released in April 2016

.

Facebook’s voice efforts ultimately manifested in 2 locations in between 2015 and 2017, according to a source near to those jobs: one was transcribing the audio of Facebook videos to make subtitles in genuine time, and the other was on publishing innovative research study at Facebook’s AI department, referred to as FAIR (Facebook Expert System Research Study). However the latter entered into the issue.

Facebook released FAIR in December 2013, and the department is frequently compared to DeepMind, the AI research study business that Google purchased for an approximated $ 400 million in2014 At FAIR, a group of 50 scientists work under the highly regarded researcher Yann LeCun to fix long-lasting issues in AI. Facebook has a 2nd, comparable department called Applied Artificial intelligence (AML), with around 100 personnel , accountable for advertising AI research study.

The obstacles with these departments were 2 fold, according to a senior source who dealt with voice at Facebook. They developed into research study enclaves that didn’t contribute much to item advancement, and they tempted experienced engineers who would otherwise be dealing with items. “It produced this parallel world of research study,” the source stated.

Amongst Facebook’s executive group there were huge concepts for utilizing voice innovation, such as developing a digital assistant like Siri, however such jobs needed long-lasting dedications of time and personnel. They were likewise warded off by an absence of cooperation in between scientists and item supervisors.

Numerous item supervisors who dealt with Facebook’s voice aspirations didn’t have a clear understanding of the innovation included, the source included. The supervisors likewise tended to alter every three-to-six months, simply as core scientists were gravitating to the prominent FAIR and AML departments. The impact resembled continuously re-potting a tree, and not offering it an opportunity to settle and grow. Facebook eventually did not have “a cohesive group that sticks with an issue.”

“Facebook never ever had a clear technique for speech acknowledgment or voice,” stated the other senior engineering source. “It was never ever clear why they purchased[Jibbigo] It was a huge concern internally. We understood there was this group, however no one understood why they were here.”

Eventually, the reason that Facebook didn’t make a more powerful dedication to developing voice innovation was basic, they included: “There was no client. No one stated to Facebook,’ I require this innovation now.'” That was, naturally, up until the Website job began establishing internally. Such is the difficulty for innovation business who wish to keep ahead of the more comprehensive competitors. Staying ingenious ways making a definitive bet on an innovation that has yet to be shown out, even when there’s no apparent client. Facebook didn’t make that call with voice innovation up until it was far too late.

.