（前回）
前回、説明したように、Google NotebookLM による日本語の音声要約は、フェイクもどきの出来であったので、がっかりした。しかし、気を取り直して、英語で再挑戦した。
先ず、前々回に示した日本語の文章をGoogle翻訳させた。以下にその内【1．アフリカのワニの話】の部分を示す。
【Google翻訳の英文】
-----------------
First, I would like you to think about "cultural differences." I first noticed these cultural differences when I went to Germany at the age of 22, and I would like you to feel something similar to that. Imagine a child being eaten by a crocodile in a river in Africa. What would you do? I would like you to think about this. I'd like you to show your hands later, and the options are as follows:
A1. The villagers killed the crocodile so that it was safe to play.
A2. They played in a different river.
A3. They played in the same river without doing anything.
Everyone, please think and raise your hands. If you think "A1. They killed the crocodile," please raise your hand. This means that they killed the crocodile. ... Is there no one here? That's humane. "A2. They played in a different river." It's dangerous, so why don't they just go somewhere else? To avoid danger? ... About half of you would think so. "A3. They played in the same river without doing anything." ... About half of you would think so too. So, I'd like to ask a question. Why do they play in the same river? Won't they be killed by the crocodile again?
[Audience] There is a risk, but it's natural, so there's nothing they can do about it.
So it's natural, so they have no choice but to be eaten by the crocodile. I think half of your answers are A2. and half are A3.
First, regarding Q1, "A3. I played in the same river without doing anything" seems to be the African way. Let's change the situation a little and think about traffic accidents in Japan. Children can die in traffic accidents. If a child dies in a traffic accident, would you avoid using that road and walk a different road after that? We all walk the same path. If we are eaten by a crocodile, we have the choice to kill it or go to another river, but if it is a traffic accident, we don't think about that. Logically, it is the same path. There is a danger and a child dies, the question is how to deal with it. However, even if the framework is the same, as soon as it becomes a crocodile, "emotional reasoning" comes into play. This kind of thing happens often. The point of this question was that it is important to think about the fundamental mechanism.
-----------------
この部分は、かなり分かりにくいだろう。というのは、この文章は実際の講演で講師の私が出席者に質問を投げかけて挙手してもらい、その反応までもが文章化されているからだ。この文章をそのまま、全く編集せずに Google NotebookLM にかけた結果を以下に示す。
【英語の Google NotebookLM音声要約】
-----------------
【Woman's voice】Let's dive into those examples then. The first one involves, well a pretty vivid scenario , a child and a crocodile in an African river. What was striking about the different reactions people have.
【Man's voice】 It really reveals the contrast, you know, a typical Western reaction might be eliminate the danger, immediately.
【Woman】 Kill the crocodile!
【Man】 Kill the crocodile or find a different river, or avoid it. However, the reported African response is essentially doing nothing.
【Woman】 Doing nothing.
【Man】 Doing nothing and accepting the risk as just a natural part of life that highlights a fundamentally different relationship with the environment. A whole different way of assessing risk actually
【Woman】 Wow!
【Man】 And you can see how for an engineer maybe designing irrigation systems in that region understanding that perspective could be absolutely crucial.
【Woman】 That's a completely different framework for thinking about risk, and then the speaker connects this to something maybe more familiar traffic accidents in Japan. How does that parallel work?
【Man】 Well, the parallel is in the sort of societal acceptance of a certain baseline level of risk.
【Woman】 OK.
【Man】 Just like people in Japan continue using roads despite, you know , the inherent danger of accidents. The villagers and the crocodile scenario might accept the crocodile's presence as just a normal part of their world. It really challenges our default assumption that there's always one universally logical or right response to danger.
【Woman】 That's a really powerful point it just shows how much our cultural background shapes are immediate reactions or assumptions really.
-----------------
英語の Google NotebookLM による音声要約は、日本語の音声要約と全く違い、驚異的なほど見事なものだった！
Google翻訳の分かりにくい英文を意味的に完全に正しく理解していて、それを本物の人間が会話しているような音声要約を作ってくれた。ワニの話は、日本語の音声要約では、AI意味が理解できず要約飛ばされた。簡単に処理された。この部分だけでなく、【2．過去と現在のオリンピック競技の比較】も含め、元の文章全体を要約させたの出来ばえは、全く非の打ちどころのない完璧なものであった。
私は思わず唸った、「この差は一体何だ！」
同じ Google NotebookLM といっても、日本語と英語のそれぞれの言語による音声要約は、いってみれば、小学生と大学院生の差がある。日本語の文章では理解できなかった部分が、英語だと完璧に意味理解しているのだ。Google NotebookLM で2割落胆したのはまさにこの部分であった。現在の自然言語解析のAIはひとえに、巨大なコンピュータパワーを武器として、大量の文書データをひたすら取り込み、意味関係の理解精度を確率論的に高めていくというやり方で発展している。この点において、日本語と英語のデータボリュームの差は軽く見積もっても20倍はあるだろう。
以前のブログ
【麻生川語録・14】『２０倍違うと世界が違って見える』
で述べたように、量が20倍異なると、質的にも全く違った世界になる。言語関連のAIツールに関しては、いくらツール自体が進展しようとも、もはや日本語だけの文章データでは、英語のツールには敵わないことは明らかだ。今後の日本（だけでなく、世界の全ての国々）は必然的にAIのツールを借りて、母国語と英語の両方を常にそつなく行き来できるような社会システムを構築していかなければならないだろう。
前回、説明したように、Google NotebookLM による日本語の音声要約は、フェイクもどきの出来であったので、がっかりした。しかし、気を取り直して、英語で再挑戦した。
先ず、前々回に示した日本語の文章をGoogle翻訳させた。以下にその内【1．アフリカのワニの話】の部分を示す。
【Google翻訳の英文】
-----------------
First, I would like you to think about "cultural differences." I first noticed these cultural differences when I went to Germany at the age of 22, and I would like you to feel something similar to that. Imagine a child being eaten by a crocodile in a river in Africa. What would you do? I would like you to think about this. I'd like you to show your hands later, and the options are as follows:
A1. The villagers killed the crocodile so that it was safe to play.
A2. They played in a different river.
A3. They played in the same river without doing anything.
Everyone, please think and raise your hands. If you think "A1. They killed the crocodile," please raise your hand. This means that they killed the crocodile. ... Is there no one here? That's humane. "A2. They played in a different river." It's dangerous, so why don't they just go somewhere else? To avoid danger? ... About half of you would think so. "A3. They played in the same river without doing anything." ... About half of you would think so too. So, I'd like to ask a question. Why do they play in the same river? Won't they be killed by the crocodile again?
[Audience] There is a risk, but it's natural, so there's nothing they can do about it.
So it's natural, so they have no choice but to be eaten by the crocodile. I think half of your answers are A2. and half are A3.
First, regarding Q1, "A3. I played in the same river without doing anything" seems to be the African way. Let's change the situation a little and think about traffic accidents in Japan. Children can die in traffic accidents. If a child dies in a traffic accident, would you avoid using that road and walk a different road after that? We all walk the same path. If we are eaten by a crocodile, we have the choice to kill it or go to another river, but if it is a traffic accident, we don't think about that. Logically, it is the same path. There is a danger and a child dies, the question is how to deal with it. However, even if the framework is the same, as soon as it becomes a crocodile, "emotional reasoning" comes into play. This kind of thing happens often. The point of this question was that it is important to think about the fundamental mechanism.
-----------------
この部分は、かなり分かりにくいだろう。というのは、この文章は実際の講演で講師の私が出席者に質問を投げかけて挙手してもらい、その反応までもが文章化されているからだ。この文章をそのまま、全く編集せずに Google NotebookLM にかけた結果を以下に示す。
【英語の Google NotebookLM音声要約】
-----------------
【Woman's voice】Let's dive into those examples then. The first one involves, well a pretty vivid scenario , a child and a crocodile in an African river. What was striking about the different reactions people have.
【Man's voice】 It really reveals the contrast, you know, a typical Western reaction might be eliminate the danger, immediately.
【Woman】 Kill the crocodile!
【Man】 Kill the crocodile or find a different river, or avoid it. However, the reported African response is essentially doing nothing.
【Woman】 Doing nothing.
【Man】 Doing nothing and accepting the risk as just a natural part of life that highlights a fundamentally different relationship with the environment. A whole different way of assessing risk actually
【Woman】 Wow!
【Man】 And you can see how for an engineer maybe designing irrigation systems in that region understanding that perspective could be absolutely crucial.
【Woman】 That's a completely different framework for thinking about risk, and then the speaker connects this to something maybe more familiar traffic accidents in Japan. How does that parallel work?
【Man】 Well, the parallel is in the sort of societal acceptance of a certain baseline level of risk.
【Woman】 OK.
【Man】 Just like people in Japan continue using roads despite, you know , the inherent danger of accidents. The villagers and the crocodile scenario might accept the crocodile's presence as just a normal part of their world. It really challenges our default assumption that there's always one universally logical or right response to danger.
【Woman】 That's a really powerful point it just shows how much our cultural background shapes are immediate reactions or assumptions really.
-----------------
英語の Google NotebookLM による音声要約は、日本語の音声要約と全く違い、驚異的なほど見事なものだった！
Google翻訳の分かりにくい英文を意味的に完全に正しく理解していて、それを本物の人間が会話しているような音声要約を作ってくれた。ワニの話は、日本語の音声要約では、AI意味が理解できず要約飛ばされた。簡単に処理された。この部分だけでなく、【2．過去と現在のオリンピック競技の比較】も含め、元の文章全体を要約させたの出来ばえは、全く非の打ちどころのない完璧なものであった。
私は思わず唸った、「この差は一体何だ！」
同じ Google NotebookLM といっても、日本語と英語のそれぞれの言語による音声要約は、いってみれば、小学生と大学院生の差がある。日本語の文章では理解できなかった部分が、英語だと完璧に意味理解しているのだ。Google NotebookLM で2割落胆したのはまさにこの部分であった。現在の自然言語解析のAIはひとえに、巨大なコンピュータパワーを武器として、大量の文書データをひたすら取り込み、意味関係の理解精度を確率論的に高めていくというやり方で発展している。この点において、日本語と英語のデータボリュームの差は軽く見積もっても20倍はあるだろう。
以前のブログ
【麻生川語録・14】『２０倍違うと世界が違って見える』
で述べたように、量が20倍異なると、質的にも全く違った世界になる。言語関連のAIツールに関しては、いくらツール自体が進展しようとも、もはや日本語だけの文章データでは、英語のツールには敵わないことは明らかだ。今後の日本（だけでなく、世界の全ての国々）は必然的にAIのツールを借りて、母国語と英語の両方を常にそつなく行き来できるような社会システムを構築していかなければならないだろう。
＜完＞
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます