I see (agree), was misreading the decoder architecture. Will amend this post when I get back to my laptop.
The original study had two different architectures; one decoded phonemes and matched to the nearest of 50 words, while the other was not phonemic, matching only ~10 phrases. I completely missed this architectural gap for the first 20 minutes after Ninety-Three’s second response, which I score myself a D on metacognition and C+ on outcomes.
Phonemic decoding seems to scale extremely well; 50 words → 125,000 words only doubles error rate. I expect anticipatory / semantic decoding to scale worse, but not extremely poorly.
I see (agree), was misreading the decoder architecture. Will amend this post when I get back to my laptop.
The original study had two different architectures; one decoded phonemes and matched to the nearest of 50 words, while the other was not phonemic, matching only ~10 phrases. I completely missed this architectural gap for the first 20 minutes after Ninety-Three’s second response, which I score myself a D on metacognition and C+ on outcomes.
Phonemic decoding seems to scale extremely well; 50 words → 125,000 words only doubles error rate. I expect anticipatory / semantic decoding to scale worse, but not extremely poorly.