Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!speech2.cs.cmu.edu!kfl
From: kfl@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Kai-Fu Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: NetTalk
Message-ID: <6955@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 89 17:02:23 GMT
References: <4539@arctic.nprdc.arpa>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 14

In article <4539@arctic.nprdc.arpa>, wilkins@nprdc.arpa (Charles Wilkins) writes:
> It seems to me that people are missing the point regarding NetTalk.  
> ....
> It is valid to discuss how well networks compare to other methods, but
> it is unfair to attack Terrys work solely on that criterion.

Agreed.  But I didn't see any 'attacks' -- merely citations of results and
papers.  Even if there was an attack, it was not (and should not be)
on NetTalk, but on incorrect and misleading claims such as the following 
quote from William Allman's book:  

	"NETalk was trained on a 1000-word transcript of a first-grader's 
	recorded conversation.  Using back propagation, in just 36 hours of 
	training, NETalk learned to enunciate English with over 95% accuracy."