|
|
|
|
|
|
by zamadatix
43 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
That is exactly what parent did:
> they are doing an insane level of complexity to shave off ~100 ms
The downside is everything they had to do to achieve it, and maintaining that capability going forward, when the product can tolerate much more. It is the definition of premature optimization.
It just maybe isn’t at a level where it is relevant in your argument/decision space in IT.