logoalt Hacker News

ericmceryesterday at 11:06 PM4 repliesview on HN

I think he’s saying they are doing an insane level of complexity to shave ~100ms off response times in a scenario where that isn’t important and might even be a negative


Replies

zamadatixyesterday at 11:27 PM

When GP mentioned reducing conversational latency as a negative that made sense (and should probably be done IMO), it just wasn't the same category of latency the article talks about reducing. I.e. increasing "network latency" just makes the conversation feel more and more out of sync, it doesn't change the rate at which the AI will interrupt ("turn latency") because the latter is based on the duration of the pause in the audio stream, not the duration it took to deliver that audio stream.

If you meant there is a case where reducing the network latency at the same delivery reliability for a given audio stream is actually a negative then I'd love to hear more about it as I'm a network guy always in search of an excuse for latency :D.

theptiptoday at 3:58 AM

By you want to be able to interject “hold on…” and have it immediately stop talking, when it goes off the rails.

And GP is correctly pointing out that the only negative here (silence waiting latency maybe being too low) is tunable separately from the network latency number.

show 1 reply