? Curious Hacker Newsfront | about | view on HN unofficial mirror
Show HN: Subvocal – Talk to your computer without making noise (subvocal.company)
241 points by aarushyadav 2026-11-02 | 145 comments | side by side | 19 rewritten | show 21 removed | updated 19:12 UTC

Hi HN, we're Aarush and Arnav from The Subvocal Company (YC F26). We’re building smart glasses that let you talk to your computer without talking out loud. You can mouth words silently and discreetly and the glasses decode them to text at the speed of speech.

Here's a video of Dave from YC trying it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QdX1eObVYI

(Edit: you don't actually have to move your lips or even open your mouth for this to work! Since the RF can see inside your mouth the system can be fine tuned on "internal speech". This isn't the automatic tongue movements that occur when "thinking" words to yourself, but more like mouthing with your lips closed. It's a bit weird to do, but with practice, we have been able to get it down pretty well.)

Arnav and I were studying CS at Georgia Tech at the beginning of the year, with no experience in silent speech or sensing. We were both AI-native builders and power users of Wispr Flow. What bugged us was not being able to use these tools in the library (or an office) or in public. At Stanford’s TreeHacks in February, we decided to build the most technically ridiculous thing we could think of. We’d read about AlterEgo, a silent speech system out of MIT’s Media Lab, and wanted to recreate it in 36 hours. We built a crude prototype, sticking EMG electrodes onto my face:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mwhv5HZMz3UTevdrgwS5O7g2jWV0K9r2/view?usp=sharing

We got it to kind of work at a letter level in a very janky way. It wasn’t good enough to win the hackathon, but convinced us to go all in. The first time I typed a sentence without anyone noticing, I felt the magic of the technology.

We quickly realized EMG (reading muscle electrical signals) wouldn’t work:

- Signal changes due to sweat

- Electrical interference

- Placement variability

- Most importantly, no one wants to stick electrodes onto their face!!

So we switched to RF and built the glasses you see now. They emit radio waves, similar to Bluetooth, that pass through your face. As they cross the tongue, lips and soft palate, they’re modulated by silent mouthing. We train foundation models on this data to decode these perturbations to text.

Despite prior academic research, getting this to work was a huge engineering challenge. First we built an extremely low noise RF sensing stack. Then we had to place antennas so their fields overlapped maximally with the articulators. Our first attempt on glasses failed completely, so we reverted to old habits and taped antennas on our face:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ks0dS0eZiTV9EqSFsyB_w5BBjpcBAfX-/view?usp=sharing

Since taping antennas consistently in the same spot and angle was hard, we created this weird but effective head rig to hold them in place:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhzNFpdDzr7oHk0isFY70dkoV4CAF1pT/view?usp=sharing

This worked, but obviously wasn’t a product yet. So we worked deep in simulations to design glasses that could hold the antennas.

That evolved into our design now, with antennas embedded within the frames. Once we established there was a signal, the next hurdle was cross-user generalization. Everyone’s facial anatomy, and hence RF signal patterns, are vastly different. We tried algorithmic workarounds but realized the only lever was to massively scale pretraining data.

So that’s what we did. We set up booths in our office and paid people to read prompts wearing our glasses, to pretrain our models on. This produced a beautiful scaling curve, with errors falling quickly as we scaled our dataset and cross-user performance becoming genuinely compelling (as you see in the video above; Dave only had a short 20-sentence calibration).

We always heard about building things from first principles but never understood it before this. We tried tackling it top down but completely failed. Only when we broke each component (the antenna, electronics, ML) down to its fundamentals to understand and optimize it did we get it to work really well.

Over the next few months we’re continuing R&D to turn our prototype glasses into the slick product on our website and ship in Q1 2027. We’re also scaling up our dataset to improve performance on edge cases.

For anyone who loves voice dictation but hates using it around people, we’ve opened preorders for our first batch of 500 units, with a $200 discount off the final price. Allocation is running out quickly, so get yours at https://subvocal.co/preorder!

 help


vessenes 2026-11-02 18:427/10questioninsightful | next [–]

Just preordered -- glasses request: there's no way to say it nicely, I have a big nose. With a high bridge. Many glasses are really tough to get properly placed; may I request you not give up on the pads w/metal adjusters that you have in the product photos? Don't let a designer take them away from you, us folks not one standard deviation from 'normal' noses will thank you.

Second, how tough is this signal processing? Will it be done on-glasses, or through an app? Third, what's the equivalent of a wake word for these? I'm reminded of the Apple Vision Pro radar to see if your fingers are clicking. I could imagine a lot of modalities where I want to just start talking and have things happen, and a lot where I don't want the glasses to pick it up. Fourth, I think a cool voice change demo would be rad -- not sure what latency is like, but if you could get it end to end under like 250ms you could probably have someone exaggerate the mouth movements and pipe out audio of them talking like someone else. Which would be another really cool demo.

Super cool. You're going to be working 80 hour weeks for the next year, I'm excited to see what you put out!

Just preordered -- glasses request: there's no way to say it nicely, I have a big nose. With a high bridge. Many glasses are really tough to get properly placed; may I request you not give up on the pads w/metal adjusters that you have in the product photos? Don't let a designer take them away from you, us folks not one standard deviation from 'normal' noses will thank you.

Second, how tough is this signal processing? Will it be done on-glasses, or through an app? Third, what's the equivalent of a wake word for these? I'm reminded of the Apple Vision Pro radar to see if your fingers are clicking. I could imagine a lot of modalities where I want to just start talking and have things happen, and a lot where I don't want the glasses to pick it up. Fourth, I think a cool voice change demo would be rad -- not sure what latency is like, but if you could get it end to end under like 250ms you could probably have someone exaggerate the mouth movements and pipe out audio of them talking like someone else. Which would be another really cool demo.

Super cool. You're going to be working 80 hour weeks for the next year, I'm excited to see what you put out!

Asks real questions about fit, where processing happens, and wake words, and suggests a creative demo.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 19:018/10first_handinformative | parent [–]

Yep, we have been quite set on nose pads to keep them comfortable. I will keep you updated with the designs!

The decoding is done via a companion app on your laptop or phone in the cloud, but end to end latency is still quite fast, under 500ms usually.

To begin with we don't plan to have a wake word, but rather a trigger key on your connected device that you're entering text into (pressing Alt for example), similar to Wispr Flow. We're doing some R&D into the silent speech equivalent of voice activity detection, so we have a low power basic RF detection always-on, not enough to decode speech from but enough to detect rough movement, and when it detects speech-like activity beginning to start we can trigger full sensing within tens of ms. This would likely ship as a software update a few months after shipping, though.

The voice change demo is something I've thought about actually, but we never got around to doing. Might film it soon :)

Yep, we have been quite set on nose pads to keep them comfortable. I will keep you updated with the designs!

The decoding is done via a companion app on your laptop or phone in the cloud, but end to end latency is still quite fast, under 500ms usually.

To begin with we don't plan to have a wake word, but rather a trigger key on your connected device that you're entering text into (pressing Alt for example), similar to Wispr Flow. We're doing some R&D into the silent speech equivalent of voice activity detection, so we have a low power basic RF detection always-on, not enough to decode speech from but enough to detect rough movement, and when it detects speech-like activity beginning to start we can trigger full sensing within tens of ms. This would likely ship as a software update a few months after shipping, though.

The voice change demo is something I've thought about actually, but we never got around to doing. Might film it soon :)

The founder gives first-hand detail on processing location, latency, how input is triggered, and planned low-power activity detection.

Super cool. For a cool voice change demo we'll allow a gb200 over low latency wifi :) elevenlabs has deals with a number of professional actors and voice actors for licensed uses, seems like you could probably find an ethical and cool co-brand opportunity in there.

Have fun building this! It's worth doing.

Super cool. For a cool voice change demo we'll allow a gb200 over low latency wifi :) elevenlabs has deals with a number of professional actors and voice actors for licensed uses, seems like you could probably find an ethical and cool co-brand opportunity in there.

Have fun building this! It's worth doing.

Encouraging, and suggests a concrete idea for licensed voice partnerships.

I think this is incredibly cool and straight out of a sci-fi novel! I think this is phenomenal for accessibility and for hands-free computing in general. I also agree with other comments that the website should have more detail on how it works, such as what you included in the post body. Amazing work guys!

I think this is incredibly cool and straight out of a sci-fi novel! I think this is phenomenal for accessibility and for hands-free computing in general. I also agree with other comments that the website should have more detail on how it works, such as what you included in the post body. Amazing work guys!

Sincere praise that also mentions accessibility and asks for more technical detail on the site.

Yea in one of the further Ender's Game novels they talk about this tech a lot for characters silently mumbling to the AI.

Yea in one of the further Ender's Game novels they talk about this tech a lot for characters silently mumbling to the AI.

Relevant sci-fi reference (Ender's Game sequels, where characters subvocalize to an AI) that adds context for the parent's comment.

Ahhhh exactly! I've wanted this since I was a kid and read those books.

Ahhhh exactly! I've wanted this since I was a kid and read those books.

A brief, sincere expression of enthusiasm that ties back to the Ender's Game reference.

I second that. I've been talking and talking to my phone and AI even more and more since it keeps getting better and is generally pretty accurate these days. And there are times when I end up typing because of environmental reasons.

This is just really groundbreaking and I know the research has been out there for a little while but to actually implement is a whole nother ball game.

I think the use cases for this will expand as the product ships and gets out there!

I second that. I've been talking and talking to my phone and AI even more and more since it keeps getting better and is generally pretty accurate these days. And there are times when I end up typing because of environmental reasons.

This is just really groundbreaking and I know the research has been out there for a little while but to actually implement is a whole nother ball game.

I think the use cases for this will expand as the product ships and gets out there!

Sincere agreement, with a short note on when the author ends up typing instead of talking.

Agree, incredibly cool, and I could definitely see myself using one, but it does give off slightly dystopian vibes, making me think of the speakwrite in 1984:

"In the long, windowless hall, with its double row of cubicles and its endless rustle of papers and hum of voices murmuring into speakwrites, there were quite a dozen people whom Winston did not even know by name"

Agree, incredibly cool, and I could definitely see myself using one, but it does give off slightly dystopian vibes, making me think of the speakwrite in 1984:

"In the long, windowless hall, with its double row of cubicles and its endless rustle of papers and hum of voices murmuring into speakwrites, there were quite a dozen people whom Winston did not even know by name"

Raises a real concern about where silent dictation could lead, using a relevant passage from 1984.

If the tech is mostly in the glasses temples, I would prefer to have something that attaches to my existing glasses. I have prescription glasses and a big head, tried the Even G2 smart glasses and the available frames set just too small for me

If the tech is mostly in the glasses temples, I would prefer to have something that attaches to my existing glasses. I have prescription glasses and a big head, tried the Even G2 smart glasses and the available frames set just too small for me

Useful product feedback from someone who wears prescription glasses and had fit trouble with another brand.
desireco42 2026-11-02 19:03 | removed0/10jokelow_effort | parent [–]

What you said 100%, we are brainiacs overhere so our CPU is large

What you said 100%, we are brainiacs overhere so our CPU is large

It's just agreement plus a joke about big heads, with nothing new to add.

Pretty cool. My only wish is that all this kind of work didn't gravitate toward glasses or assume glasses are the default thing-on-your-face now. 3/4 of humans don't wear them, and even some of us blind bats hate them enough that we endure the hassle of contact lenses.

Pretty cool. My only wish is that all this kind of work didn't gravitate toward glasses or assume glasses are the default thing-on-your-face now. 3/4 of humans don't wear them, and even some of us blind bats hate them enough that we endure the hassle of contact lenses.

Fair, good-faith critique of the glasses form factor, based on personal experience.
humble_ibis81 2026-11-02 18:44 | rewritten6/10first_handsnark | original | prev | next [–]

For the ones thinking this is great, have you actually tried to talk without making sounds?

I don't think it is an intuitive action at all and I became self-conscious about not making a sound rather than talking like I normally would.

I suppose it would require some "getting used to."

Regardless, I think it is a cool idea and a real problem. Sometimes I don't want to type nor talk out loud so I find myself whispering at my phone like I'm telling it a dirty secret.

--

As I'm writing this, I think this kind of product might not hit the market for consumers, and I worry that companies like Flock could use machine lip reading like this to monitor people's speech.

original comment by 0x4e

For the ones thinking this is great, have you actually tried to talk without making sounds?

I don't think it is an intuitive action at all and I became self-conscious about not making a sound rather than talking like I normally would.

I suppose it would require some "getting used to."

Regardless, I think it is a cool idea and a real problem. Sometimes I don't want to type nor talk out loud so I find myself whispering at my phone like I'm telling it a dirty secret.

--

As I'm writing this, I think this kind of product might not hit the market for consumers, but I'm seeing this used by Flock like companies to spy on people's speech, so kudos on making machine lip reading a thing!

First-hand experience with silent speech is worth keeping; I swapped the sarcastic 'kudos' at the end for a plain statement of the surveillance worry.

This is:

1. Insanely cool

2. Gives me serious "whispering earring" vibes. Imagine having a full on conversation with an AI via subvocalization and listening with ear bud to guide you throughout the day. https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/science-fiction/2012-10-03-yvain-thewhisperingearring.html

This is:

1. Insanely cool

2. Gives me serious "whispering earring" vibes. Imagine having a full on conversation with an AI via subvocalization and listening with ear bud to guide you throughout the day. https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/science-fiction/2012-10-03-yvain-thewhisperingearring.html

Sincere enthusiasm plus a relevant literary reference that raises an interesting implication of the product.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 19:075/10first_handinformative | parent [–]

The glasses will have open ear speakers similar to meta glasses! We plan to make our own agent harness and connect it native with the glasses. I have meta glasses but rarely use the AI since it's weird to talk out loud to ask it things when I'm out. This is how we want to solve it

The glasses will have open ear speakers similar to meta glasses! We plan to make our own agent harness and connect it native with the glasses. I have meta glasses but rarely use the AI since it's weird to talk out loud to ask it things when I'm out. This is how we want to solve it

The founder shares product plans and their own experience with Meta glasses as the reason for building it.

Cue the resurgence of lip reading-based espionage. Imagining having to scan the room for people watching subvocalizers. Will subvocalizers start holding up a clipboard over their face a la NFL coaches?

Cue the resurgence of lip reading-based espionage. Imagining having to scan the room for people watching subvocalizers. Will subvocalizers start holding up a clipboard over their face a la NFL coaches?

A light-hearted but real privacy concern about lip reading, though the post says lip movement isn't strictly needed.

That's already been a problem ever since people figured out you can recover voice from watching the subpixel vibration of objects within a room. (Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUzB0L0mSCI)

There is a reason secure activity happens within secured rooms built to a specific standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_information_facility

That's already been a problem ever since people figured out you can recover voice from watching the subpixel vibration of objects within a room. (Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUzB0L0mSCI)

There is a reason secure activity happens within secured rooms built to a specific standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_information_facility

Responds to the lip-reading concern with a relevant point about visual eavesdropping (the visual microphone research) and SCIF standards, and links sources for both.

[flagged]
0x4e 2026-11-02 18:54 | removed0/10tropelow_effort | parent | prev [–]

Thought of the same! Cue George Orwell facepalming in his grave.

Thought of the same! Cue George Orwell facepalming in his grave.

An Orwell quip agreeing with the parent comment, with nothing new added.
dusky_finch70 2026-11-02 19:05 | rewritten4/10curmudgeonly | original | prev | next [–]

If you're selling a physical product, using AI-generated renders to show it seems like a bad idea. You have no idea whether the product actually fits on people's faces.

I'm very skeptical they can deliver this product, in this form factor, by Q1 2027.

original comment by ipsum2

If you're selling a physical product, using AI to model your product seems like a really bad idea. You have no idea if the product actually fits on their faces.

Calling it early - this is a scam. There's no way they're going to deliver that product, in that form factor, by Q1 2027.

The doubts about the AI renders and the delivery timeline are real points, so I kept them and dropped the bare 'scam' accusation.

Theres a LOT of people working on this.. Cornell have been putting students on this task for about 5 years.. Lots of fun different ways of doing it. Interesting you went the radar from glasses route.. I wish you well. Yet to see a product apart from the odd lip reading ML project that makes it into a product..

Theres a LOT of people working on this.. Cornell have been putting students on this task for about 5 years.. Lots of fun different ways of doing it. Interesting you went the radar from glasses route.. I wish you well. Yet to see a product apart from the odd lip reading ML project that makes it into a product..

Gives useful context on prior research like Cornell's work, and a fair note that few of these projects have become products.

I'm waiting for throat tape a la that one paper where whatever you say in your head translates to micro movements in your throat/jaw or something like that.

I'm waiting for throat tape a la that one paper where whatever you say in your head translates to micro movements in your throat/jaw or something like that.

Mentions a related research approach (throat sensors that pick up subvocalization), which adds some context even though it's vague.
avree 2026-11-02 17:555/10questionfirst_hand | prev | next [–]

Do most people talk faster than they can type? It's the opposite for me - I also read aloud slower than I can read in my head.

Do most people talk faster than they can type? It's the opposite for me - I also read aloud slower than I can read in my head.

A genuine question, backed by the commenter's own experience, about the product's core premise that speaking beats typing.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:006/10informativefirst_hand | parent | next [–]

Most people type at 40-50 WPM. Developers can often type at 70-100 WPM. Meanwhile, most people can talk at 120-200 WPM. Beyond just speed, we've found with many people that talking things out tends to flow more naturally, since it's often a lower friction action so people don't "sanitize" the text in their head before outputting it. Leads to better prompts quite often :)

Most people type at 40-50 WPM. Developers can often type at 70-100 WPM. Meanwhile, most people can talk at 120-200 WPM. Beyond just speed, we've found with many people that talking things out tends to flow more naturally, since it's often a lower friction action so people don't "sanitize" the text in their head before outputting it. Leads to better prompts quite often :)

Answers the question with typical typing and speaking speeds plus what the founders have seen from users.

> talking things out tends to flow more naturally,

I've found the opposite. Typing feels much more "deliberate", and of course you can hit backspace but you can't un-speak a word. With prompting, I've found that, in general, speaking leads to lower-quality results than typing.

> talking things out tends to flow more naturally,

I've found the opposite. Typing feels much more "deliberate", and of course you can hit backspace but you can't un-speak a word. With prompting, I've found that, in general, speaking leads to lower-quality results than typing.

A first-hand disagreement that offers a useful counterpoint to the founders' claim.

I was surprised to find after using dictation heavily all year that I actually talk a load of rubbish when I'm speaking, using all kinds of cliches and fillers and saying way more than was needed.

I was surprised to find after using dictation heavily all year that I actually talk a load of rubbish when I'm speaking, using all kinds of cliches and fillers and saying way more than was needed.

First-hand experience with dictation that adds to the typing vs. speaking discussion.

The bit before your quote was

> with many people

Not everyone. I, at least, definitely overthink what I type, and while I end up with nice-ish sentences in my prompts it takes a lot longer than a train of thought that the AI parses correctly most of the time anyway.

The bit before your quote was

> with many people

Not everyone. I, at least, definitely overthink what I type, and while I end up with nice-ish sentences in my prompts it takes a lot longer than a train of thought that the AI parses correctly most of the time anyway.

Points out the qualifier the parent left out and adds a personal counterexample, in good faith.
kqp 2026-11-02 18:447/10insightfulinformative | root | parent | prev | next [–]

Also, speech is probably bottlenecked by speed of thought, not making the sounds. I recall some study showing that data rate is pretty consistent between languages, despite wpm varying significantly due to language verbosity. You can try it yourself: try to quickly repeat “one two three four five” then try to read a paragraph out loud as quickly as you can, I bet you can feel the first strain your muscles and the second your brain, and I bet the first blows your typing wpm out of the water.

Also, speech is probably bottlenecked by speed of thought, not making the sounds. I recall some study showing that data rate is pretty consistent between languages, despite wpm varying significantly due to language verbosity. You can try it yourself: try to quickly repeat “one two three four five” then try to read a paragraph out loud as quickly as you can, I bet you can feel the first strain your muscles and the second your brain, and I bet the first blows your typing wpm out of the water.

Makes a thoughtful point, citing research on consistent information rates across languages, that thinking speed limits speech more than the mouth does.

I'm dyslexic and while I can type fairly quickly it's always a struggle to get the spelling and typing mistakes fixed. Talking is a much more natural way to express myself. The frustration of not being able to spell the word that I want doesn't exist. Mis-transcription errors are of course an issue, but those are getting fewer and fewer.

I'm dyslexic and while I can type fairly quickly it's always a struggle to get the spelling and typing mistakes fixed. Talking is a much more natural way to express myself. The frustration of not being able to spell the word that I want doesn't exist. Mis-transcription errors are of course an issue, but those are getting fewer and fewer.

A first-hand account of why speech input helps someone with dyslexia.

When I try talking for prompting my coding agents, I'm always severely disappointed with the specificity of the prompt. It's just much easier for me to "talk about" coding specifics with a keyboard than it is for me to speak about them, for some reason.

I suspect this has to do with the nature of the work you're doing; I dunno, just count me firmly in the camp of people who only rarely feel like I can express a thought sufficiently for coding agents with their voice.

When I try talking for prompting my coding agents, I'm always severely disappointed with the specificity of the prompt. It's just much easier for me to "talk about" coding specifics with a keyboard than it is for me to speak about them, for some reason.

I suspect this has to do with the nature of the work you're doing; I dunno, just count me firmly in the camp of people who only rarely feel like I can express a thought sufficiently for coding agents with their voice.

A firsthand, good-faith disagreement that voice prompting for coding agents comes out less specific than typing.

Yeah, we have a lot of experience with typing while our eyes and mind are occupied elsewhere. But I've noticed the years have slowed my typing.

Yeah, we have a lot of experience with typing while our eyes and mind are occupied elsewhere. But I've noticed the years have slowed my typing.

A short personal note about typing speed. It's minor but relevant to the parent's point.
placid_hare33 2026-11-02 18:08 | rewritten5/10snarkfirst_hand | original | parent | prev | next [–]

I'm the same. I also can think ahead / along much better while typing. When I'm talking I'm just talking, not thinking as much.

That said, I know a lot of people prefer talking to their computer, especially when their computer is a phone. So there is definitely a place for stuff like this.

original comment by sspiff

I'm the same. I also can think ahead / along much better while typing. When I'm talking I'm just talking, not thinking as much.

But I guess thinking is going out of style anyway.

That said, I know a lot of people prefer talking to their computer, especially when their computer is a phone. So there is definitely a place for stuff like this.

Took out the snarky aside about thinking going out of style and kept the personal experience and the balanced conclusion.

You need to train yourself to speak written speech. When you do that, the thought processes behind typing your words activate, and your language use changes.

You need to train yourself to speak written speech. When you do that, the thought processes behind typing your words activate, and your language use changes.

A short but real suggestion about training yourself to dictate in a written register.

As a person who often talks far too fast and incoherently, but types generally fast and legibly, I had never recognised or even considered this, but it seems helpful. Thanks.

As a person who often talks far too fast and incoherently, but types generally fast and legibly, I had never recognised or even considered this, but it seems helpful. Thanks.

A sincere first-hand reply to the parent's point that's already in good faith, so it stays as written.
quick_mink38 2026-11-02 18:18 | rewritten3/10snarkquestion | original | root | parent | prev | next [–]

I'm not sure it's worth retraining yourself to speak written prose when typing already works. What benefit would that bring over just typing?

original comment by lstodd

Why bother when old ways work _and_ there is no benefit? Or name one.

Rewritten to keep the real skepticism about the benefit and drop the challenging tone.
jbs789 2026-11-02 18:163/10questionlow_effort | root | parent | prev [–]

How?

How?

Short but sincere question asking the parent how to train yourself to speak written speech.

On my phone, I do. I still like to tap with my thumbs, but my iPhone keyboard sucks so when I need to type a lot, I’d rather dictate.

On my phone, I do. I still like to tap with my thumbs, but my iPhone keyboard sucks so when I need to type a lot, I’d rather dictate.

Answers the parent's question with a short personal experience of dictating on a phone.

Most people talk faster than they can type. 80 wpm voice chat is easy for everyone. 80 wpm typing filters out most typists.

Most people talk faster than they can type. 80 wpm voice chat is easy for everyone. 80 wpm typing filters out most typists.

Gives a direct, relevant answer with a concrete speed comparison, though it cites no source.

This has been an interesting thing for me to watch as it's such a case of people having widely different experiences. I'm sure people that didn't grow up on a keyboard like me can probably talk quicker than they type, but even aside from me being a fairly good typist my speech is held up by being a bit more halting, a bit more of backtracking on word choice, sometimes not quite the same 'voice' of writing as I'm aiming for, all of which obliterates any speed advantage it'd have for me.

But happy to see people get more options.

This reminds me of Eternity's End by Jeffrey Carver and the implants they had. Released in 2000 but the more time goes on the more the neural implant technology is coming about. To be fair I think Enders Game had similar tech to detect subvocal speech like this product.

This has been an interesting thing for me to watch as it's such a case of people having widely different experiences. I'm sure people that didn't grow up on a keyboard like me can probably talk quicker than they type, but even aside from me being a fairly good typist my speech is held up by being a bit more halting, a bit more of backtracking on word choice, sometimes not quite the same 'voice' of writing as I'm aiming for, all of which obliterates any speed advantage it'd have for me.

But happy to see people get more options.

This reminds me of Eternity's End by Jeffrey Carver and the implants they had. Released in 2000 but the more time goes on the more the neural implant technology is coming about. To be fair I think Enders Game had similar tech to detect subvocal speech like this product.

Thoughtful personal take on why speech isn't faster for everyone, plus relevant sci-fi references.

> This has been an interesting thing for me to watch as it's such a case of people having widely different experiences.

Same. I'm often told I talk too fast, but I feel I communicate slowly because a lot of my fast speech involves halting and backtracking and such.

I can easily type 100WPM+, but I trivially blast out a few paragraphs of perfectly adequate text in a few seconds and then spend a few minutes re-editing it.

> This has been an interesting thing for me to watch as it's such a case of people having widely different experiences.

Same. I'm often told I talk too fast, but I feel I communicate slowly because a lot of my fast speech involves halting and backtracking and such.

I can easily type 100WPM+, but I trivially blast out a few paragraphs of perfectly adequate text in a few seconds and then spend a few minutes re-editing it.

Personal experience comparing speaking and typing speed, which bears on whether voice input is actually faster.

Writing also filters the useless crap that is spoken but is not worth writing down.

Writing also filters the useless crap that is spoken but is not worth writing down.

The tone is blunt, but it makes a real counterpoint: slower writing works as a filter on what's worth saying.

Yes, I'd estimate the vast majority of people speak faster they can type. Not sure about the thinking part because I usually have 20 threads going parallel in my head and can't imagine what normal thinking would be like.

Yes, I'd estimate the vast majority of people speak faster they can type. Not sure about the thinking part because I usually have 20 threads going parallel in my head and can't imagine what normal thinking would be like.

A direct answer to the question, with a small personal aside.

While sitting at the desk, I type about as fast as I talk. While unloading the dishwasher I'm a much faster talker than typer

While sitting at the desk, I type about as fast as I talk. While unloading the dishwasher I'm a much faster talker than typer

Makes a light but real point: voice input pays off when your hands are busy, not when you're at a keyboard.

I'm not reading aloud most of the time that I'm talking.

I'm not reading aloud most of the time that I'm talking.

Short, but it makes a fair point: reading-aloud speed isn't the same thing as conversational speaking speed.

I am so glad to see an unpolished early look and an honest evaluation of about five percent error rate in the YouTube video. The really cool stuff will be the applications on top of `subvocal` though at least in my opinion.

So this could take "noise canceling" to a whole new level if you could somehow "speak" across a loud bar or across the world, for that matter. Being integrated into something like Signal or similar end to end encrypted platform would be interesting as well.

I am so glad to see an unpolished early look and an honest evaluation of about five percent error rate in the YouTube video. The really cool stuff will be the applications on top of `subvocal` though at least in my opinion.

So this could take "noise canceling" to a whole new level if you could somehow "speak" across a loud bar or across the world, for that matter. Being integrated into something like Signal or similar end to end encrypted platform would be interesting as well.

A good-faith comment that notes the error rate shown in the demo and suggests some plausible applications.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:296/10first_handinformative | parent [–]

Yep, I agree. Noise cancellation is a feature we want to release at some point in the future. Using the RF to denoise a very noisy audio signal which has you speaking in it. And we'll release an SDK as well a few months after shipping to build stuff on top of it!

Yep, I agree. Noise cancellation is a feature we want to release at some point in the future. Using the RF to denoise a very noisy audio signal which has you speaking in it. And we'll release an SDK as well a few months after shipping to build stuff on top of it!

The founder describes planned features: RF-based audio denoising and an SDK.

Really neat tech! Just curious, how much did you leverage AI during the development? This seems like the type of neat tech that we should expect more and more from wielding our new tools well.

Really neat tech! Just curious, how much did you leverage AI during the development? This seems like the type of neat tech that we should expect more and more from wielding our new tools well.

A sincere question to the founders about how they built it.
uhutiik 2026-11-02 19:11 | removed0/10low_effortcurmudgeonlysnark | prev | next [–]

This is so dumb

This is so dumb

A one-line dismissal of the product that gives no reasoning to keep.

You can have a silent conversation with someone else wearing the device? This does not bode well for casinos.

You can have a silent conversation with someone else wearing the device? This does not bode well for casinos.

A short but real point: silent conversation between two wearers could make cheating or collusion easier in places like casinos.

A casino would have no problem seeing mouth movement.

A casino would have no problem seeing mouth movement.

A short but real counterpoint about casino surveillance, though the story's edit says the system can work without visible lip movement.

With so many people singing the praises of voice to text, I keep thinking about how most sci-fi futures feature subvocalization as a prerec for that kind of adoption. Always love to see sci-fi come to life!

With so many people singing the praises of voice to text, I keep thinking about how most sci-fi futures feature subvocalization as a prerec for that kind of adoption. Always love to see sci-fi come to life!

A sincere, on-topic remark that sci-fi has long treated subvocalization as what makes voice interfaces practical.

I'm more looking for the Jane from Speaker for the Dead version. In-ear device that can hear and feel the subvocalization.

I'm more looking for the Jane from Speaker for the Dead version. In-ear device that can hear and feel the subvocalization.

A real product comparison: the commenter wants an in-ear form factor that picks up subvocalization, like Jane in Speaker for the Dead.

I had to look it up, I forgot he communicated with her through sub-vocalizations. I remember the jewel earpiece, but in my head he just communicated through thoughts or something.

Good reference! That series of books Is one of my all time favorites.

I had to look it up, I forgot he communicated with her through sub-vocalizations. I remember the jewel earpiece, but in my head he just communicated through thoughts or something.

Good reference! That series of books Is one of my all time favorites.

A small but sincere follow-up that clarifies how subvocal communication worked in the referenced book.

First, this my favorite book of all time so I love seeing it shouted out

Second, I agree with exactly this. Something shaped like an AirPod

First, this my favorite book of all time so I love seeing it shouted out

Second, I agree with exactly this. Something shaped like an AirPod

Short, but it adds a real form-factor preference: an earbud shape instead of glasses.

I mean we're getting pretty close here -- you could have these + your AirPods in transparency mode up and you're not far off. Also Claude won't currently ice you out for going dark, unlike Jane.

I mean we're getting pretty close here -- you could have these + your AirPods in transparency mode up and you're not far off. Also Claude won't currently ice you out for going dark, unlike Jane.

A friendly reply that suggests a real way to get close to the in-ear idea, with a light Ender's Game joke.

What I would really like is a washable "cyber suit". Mock or turtle neck (for the voice / STT capture / control), EEG sensors, breathing rate, blood pressure, gestures via arm motion sensors,). Removable rechargeable battery module to wash the torso / shirt slap it on a clean one. For EEG it would have to be pretty compressed though, so not sure it would be comfortable enough to wear to sleep? maybe only an internal harness needs to be that compressed. not sure. I'm tired of wearing a Fitbit, or glasses, or these different things people have to look at, keep up with, break easy etc.

What I would really like is a washable "cyber suit". Mock or turtle neck (for the voice / STT capture / control), EEG sensors, breathing rate, blood pressure, gestures via arm motion sensors,). Removable rechargeable battery module to wash the torso / shirt slap it on a clean one. For EEG it would have to be pretty compressed though, so not sure it would be comfortable enough to wear to sleep? maybe only an internal harness needs to be that compressed. not sure. I'm tired of wearing a Fitbit, or glasses, or these different things people have to look at, keep up with, break easy etc.

A sincere, related wish for an integrated wearable sensor garment, with some practical thinking about comfort and washing.
joshstrange 2026-11-02 18:036/10first_handinsightful | prev | next [–]

Super excited to see more products in this area. I talk to my computer the majority of the time now, and I can do that because I work from home. If I were on public transportation or in an office, it would be much more difficult. It's been interesting to watch the Overton window, if you will, shift for people talking _to_ their phones. Now, the majority of my family will use voice to text on their phone whereas I remember just a few years ago, if not even just a year ago, it was made fun of.

Super excited to see more products in this area. I talk to my computer the majority of the time now, and I can do that because I work from home. If I were on public transportation or in an office, it would be much more difficult. It's been interesting to watch the Overton window, if you will, shift for people talking _to_ their phones. Now, the majority of my family will use voice to text on their phone whereas I remember just a few years ago, if not even just a year ago, it was made fun of.

First-hand experience of where voice input breaks down, plus a thoughtful note on how attitudes toward talking to devices have shifted.

Very cool! I was curious to hear the details of how it worked but couldn’t find them on your landing page. I’m glad to see them here and you might want to include them more prominently on the page itself. I didn’t even realize it was a pair of glasses til I read the above.

Very cool! I was curious to hear the details of how it worked but couldn’t find them on your landing page. I’m glad to see them here and you might want to include them more prominently on the page itself. I didn’t even realize it was a pair of glasses til I read the above.

Friendly, constructive feedback that the landing page should explain the product and make it clear it's glasses.

E.g. your FAQ says it doesn’t use cameras but does not say what it does use. And when I got to the footer and clicked the “how it works” link, it seemingly took me back to the top of the page I had just read.

E.g. your FAQ says it doesn’t use cameras but does not say what it does use. And when I got to the footer and clicked the “how it works” link, it seemingly took me back to the top of the page I had just read.

Specific, constructive feedback about the landing page's missing explanation and a broken 'how it works' link.
theturtletalks 2026-11-02 17:317/10informativefirst_hand | prev | next [–]

Someone built an open-source version of this, but it’s far from polished:

https://github.com/joeblau/subvox

There was this really interesting one where it reads your lips:

https://github.com/amywork777/lipflow

I’m using these to build my own so I can work in co-working spaces, planes, and libraries. Though moving my mouth with no words might draw some eyes.

Someone built an open-source version of this, but it’s far from polished:

https://github.com/joeblau/subvox

There was this really interesting one where it reads your lips:

https://github.com/amywork777/lipflow

I’m using these to build my own so I can work in co-working spaces, planes, and libraries. Though moving my mouth with no words might draw some eyes.

Links to open-source projects doing the same thing and describes the commenter building their own, including the downside that silent mouthing still draws attention.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 17:388/10first_handinformativeinsightful | parent | next [–]

Yup we worked with IMUs as well when we started this. They measure aggregated face motion, so cannot distinguish between fine phonetic classes, only broad words. The open source demo got to a 5 word classifier, I believe. We tried a lot to make IMUs work too, in various form factors, but the signal doesn't contain enough information for open ended decoding beyond classifying between a few words. We would have loved to be able to just push software!

Yup we worked with IMUs as well when we started this. They measure aggregated face motion, so cannot distinguish between fine phonetic classes, only broad words. The open source demo got to a 5 word classifier, I believe. We tried a lot to make IMUs work too, in various form factors, but the signal doesn't contain enough information for open ended decoding beyond classifying between a few words. We would have loved to be able to just push software!

The founder explains from experience why IMU-based approaches can't do open-ended silent speech decoding.

> There was this really interesting one where it reads your lips

This is what I thought the original post was about. Having to wear glasses is where it lost me.

If lip-reading through your existing computer or phone camera could be made really accurate, that seems like the bigger win to me. Requiring dedicated frames is going to put off a large share of people who don't want to wear smart glasses.

original comment by willio58

> There was this really interesting one where it reads your lips

This is what I thought the original post was about. The glasses you have to wear is where that lost me.

If we could get lip-reading via your computer/phone camera down perfectly, that's the real win. Making people wear your goofy frames is where you lose a massive portion of people. Nobody wants to look like Zuckerberg lol

A real point about camera-based lip reading versus wearables, with the personal jab taken out.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 17:419/10first_handinsightfulinformative | root | parent [–]

Lip reading is one of the other modalities we tried as well beyond IMU, EMG and RF! We worked a lot on fine tuning Auto-AVSR, one of the most commonly used open source lipreading models. It's very enticing to work on, since it gets to about 17% word error rate, which looks good enough that you would think working on it further would get it down to product quality, but we found there's an information-theoretic limit on the modality. Speech has 40 phonemes, but only about 12 to 15 visemes (externally visually separable phonetic states). For example P and B look very similar from a camera. This causes the scaling laws on lipreading to flatten out at an error that's too high to be product ready but just low enough to make for a good demo. Our original plan was actually to ship a lipreading software to see if people would want this behavior, but we realized you couldn't make lipreading work!

Lip reading is one of the other modalities we tried as well beyond IMU, EMG and RF! We worked a lot on fine tuning Auto-AVSR, one of the most commonly used open source lipreading models. It's very enticing to work on, since it gets to about 17% word error rate, which looks good enough that you would think working on it further would get it down to product quality, but we found there's an information-theoretic limit on the modality. Speech has 40 phonemes, but only about 12 to 15 visemes (externally visually separable phonetic states). For example P and B look very similar from a camera. This causes the scaling laws on lipreading to flatten out at an error that's too high to be product ready but just low enough to make for a good demo. Our original plan was actually to ship a lipreading software to see if people would want this behavior, but we realized you couldn't make lipreading work!

The founder explains firsthand, with technical detail, why lip reading hits a ceiling because there are fewer visemes than phonemes.

but can't a decision model or some other model deduce "P" or "B" based on the context (i.e., previous words said)?

reminds me of tesla fsd v. waymo. may be a market for both? i.e., camera-only or camera + specific hardware.

but can't a decision model or some other model deduce "P" or "B" based on the context (i.e., previous words said)?

reminds me of tesla fsd v. waymo. may be a market for both? i.e., camera-only or camera + specific hardware.

Genuine technical question about using context to resolve viseme ambiguity, plus a relevant market analogy.

Why not a pencil in the ear or something you can put in a shirt pocket? Or even earbuds?

Why not a pencil in the ear or something you can put in a shirt pocket? Or even earbuds?

A real question about why the founders chose glasses over other wearable designs.

Now that is insightful! The demo definitely fooled me and even the first repo requires you to train the model.

Lip reading AI would be pretty big since privacy would probably go out the window.

Now that is insightful! The demo definitely fooled me and even the first repo requires you to train the model.

Lip reading AI would be pretty big since privacy would probably go out the window.

Engages with the founder's explanation and raises a relevant point about what lip-reading AI would mean for privacy.

Any deaf/HoH person who has tried to do lipreading could have told you all of this too.

Good luck on the project!

Any deaf/HoH person who has tried to do lipreading could have told you all of this too.

Good luck on the project!

A brief, good-faith confirmation from deaf/HoH experience that the viseme limit is real.

One of the coolest things I have recently seen but would love some details. It also got me thinking a about this recent Neuralink post.

https://neuralink.com/updates/72-hour-voice-hackathon/

One of the coolest things I have recently seen but would love some details. It also got me thinking a about this recent Neuralink post.

https://neuralink.com/updates/72-hour-voice-hackathon/

Points to a relevant comparison with Neuralink's voice work.

I'm curious about whether this could be done with the hardware mounted on top of the laptop screen or on a stand on the desk, rather than the glasses form factor. Have you explored this?

I'm curious about whether this could be done with the hardware mounted on top of the laptop screen or on a stand on the desk, rather than the glasses form factor. Have you explored this?

A real question about other form factors that the founders can answer.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 17:469/10first_handinformativeinsightful | parent [–]

Yes, we have! The same kind of RF doesn't work in that form, since it is attenuated strongly over that big of a distance. But the other interesting alternative we tried it mmWave radar, RF at about 60 GHz, the same band as 5G. This is much more similar to conventional radar, in that it would bounce off the face rather than passing through it like our current system. We found a few problems with this: 1. It faced the same issue as cameras. mmWave radar has a very low penetration in tissue, so it basically just bounced off the mouth. This only let us see visemes, which aren't enough to get to a low error rate as complete phonetic decoding can. 2. While mmWave radar can detect skin movement as small as a few microns via Doppler shift (given it's small wavelength), its spatial resolution with most systems is quite low. For example, it can tell that something moved 2 microns but within a 5cm x 5cm block. This coarse information makes it very hard to decode

That's why we weren't able to make something that can mount to your laptop. We're trying to make a necklace form factor at some point in the future though, but can't give a date on this!

Yes, we have! The same kind of RF doesn't work in that form, since it is attenuated strongly over that big of a distance. But the other interesting alternative we tried it mmWave radar, RF at about 60 GHz, the same band as 5G. This is much more similar to conventional radar, in that it would bounce off the face rather than passing through it like our current system. We found a few problems with this: 1. It faced the same issue as cameras. mmWave radar has a very low penetration in tissue, so it basically just bounced off the mouth. This only let us see visemes, which aren't enough to get to a low error rate as complete phonetic decoding can. 2. While mmWave radar can detect skin movement as small as a few microns via Doppler shift (given it's small wavelength), its spatial resolution with most systems is quite low. For example, it can tell that something moved 2 microns but within a 5cm x 5cm block. This coarse information makes it very hard to decode

That's why we weren't able to make something that can mount to your laptop. We're trying to make a necklace form factor at some point in the future though, but can't give a date on this!

Founder explains in technical detail why mmWave radar mounted on a laptop or desk didn't work for them.

What about something like a baseball cap instead of glasses? Or some sort of head band?

What about something like a baseball cap instead of glasses? Or some sort of head band?

A real question about other form factors that could work with the sensing constraints the parent described.

Exploring that too as a next product, but probably a while down the line!

Exploring that too as a next product, but probably a while down the line!

A short but direct founder answer about other form factors.
Lerc 2026-11-02 18:06 | removed0/10joke | root | parent [–]

How about a cap with a propellor on it that spins when receiving words :)

How about a cap with a propellor on it that spins when receiving words :)

A pure joke with nothing substantive in it.
silver_vole50 2026-11-02 18:17 | rewritten5/10curmudgeonly | original | prev | next [–]

I think this would work better as a desk-mounted sensor like a Leap Motion than as glasses. A lot of people who sit in front of computers all day already wear prescription glasses, so a glasses form factor seems like a real barrier for them.

original comment by json_hero

Should really just be like a leap motion device on the desk, glasses are so gimmicky and aren't gonna fly for people with prescriptions (a large set of people in-front of computers all day)

Real form-factor critique, rewritten to drop the dismissive 'gimmicky' framing.

People with prescriptions can just get versions with prescriptions in them (this is a thing for "smart" glasses already).

People with prescriptions can just get versions with prescriptions in them (this is a thing for "smart" glasses already).

A brief, factual answer to the concern about prescription glasses.

Can, but as a new product it is going to limit their adoption rate by some pretty significant amount.

Can, but as a new product it is going to limit their adoption rate by some pretty significant amount.

This is a brief but fair point about how prescription needs could slow adoption of a new product.

half of the other people in the office in the video are wearing prescription glasses

half of the other people in the office in the video are wearing prescription glasses

A short but real counterpoint that points to evidence in the video about prescription glasses wearers.
csh0 2026-11-02 18:492/10low_effort | prev | next [–]

Very cool. I suspect you guys will get scooped up by a bigger player working on smart glasses soon.

Very cool. I suspect you guys will get scooped up by a bigger player working on smart glasses soon.

A brief, friendly guess about acquisition; it's in good faith but says little.
clkao 2026-11-02 18:175/10informative | prev | next [–]

this is super cool. I did some digging about current research on avsr using video and lip point cloud movement a while back. found projects like https://github.com/amanvirparhar/chaplin but this seems more promising!

this is super cool. I did some digging about current research on avsr using video and lip point cloud movement a while back. found projects like https://github.com/amanvirparhar/chaplin but this seems more promising!

Adds context on related AVSR research with a useful link.

This is very cool, but oddly, the site is TOO focused on the user problem being solved to the extent that it feels like snake oil. The issue is that this is contrary to people's experience of what is possible, so without discussing WHY you can do this, it looks like a scam or vaporware.

This is very cool, but oddly, the site is TOO focused on the user problem being solved to the extent that it feels like snake oil. The issue is that this is contrary to people's experience of what is possible, so without discussing WHY you can do this, it looks like a scam or vaporware.

Useful criticism: because the claim seems impossible, the site needs to explain how the tech works or it will read as vaporware.

Fair feedback, will take into account. Looking to change up the site quite a bit soon!

Fair feedback, will take into account. Looking to change up the site quite a bit soon!

The founder gives a brief, good-faith reply to feedback on the website.

Neat! I don't like talking to my computer (audibly or not), but that's a cool demo.

I wonder if we could eventually end up with a "throat muscle" version where people learn to talk a new way without having to move the visible mouth muscles too.

Neat! I don't like talking to my computer (audibly or not), but that's a cool demo.

I wonder if we could eventually end up with a "throat muscle" version where people learn to talk a new way without having to move the visible mouth muscles too.

Friendly comment with an interesting speculative idea about subvocal throat-muscle speech.

Really cool piece of tech! Languages supported rn? English only?

Really cool piece of tech! Languages supported rn? English only?

A short, real question about which languages the product supports.
OhMeadhbh 2026-11-02 17:383/10tangential_annoyance | prev | next [–]

Spent 30 seconds scrolling down to try to figure out what this is. Eventually clicked away from the site because it was taking too long to get to the point. I'm sure it's great and I understand it's something to do with glasses and subvocalizations, but consider a one sentence contextualization at the top of the page.

Spent 30 seconds scrolling down to try to figure out what this is. Eventually clicked away from the site because it was taking too long to get to the point. I'm sure it's great and I understand it's something to do with glasses and subvocalizations, but consider a one sentence contextualization at the top of the page.

Constructive landing-page feedback for a Show HN, with a concrete suggestion for the makers.
tidy_marten27 2026-11-02 17:55 | rewritten3/10off_topicsnarkinsinuationkept_for_replies | original | parent | next [–]

This reminds me of something I ran into recently. I was helping someone who builds with AI coding tools, and their README.md was over 2,000 lines long. When I asked why, they said it was a really complicated application. It mostly manages a set of TODO items written in markdown.

original comment by LatencyKills

I was just trying to help a vibe coder and immediately noticed that their README.md was over 2,000 lines long. I asked, "Why is your readme so long?" and their response was, "This is just a really complicated application."

The app essentially manages a bunch of TODO items written in markdown.

I rewrote this instead of removing it because the reply below, about AI agents treating READMEs as requirements documents, has real substance. The anecdote stays and the dig is gone.
derefr 2026-11-02 18:056/10insightfuloff_topic | root | parent [–]

For some reason AI coding agents seem to think a README should be a Product Requirements Document (PRD).

I think it's because most projects don't have any settled place (or at least, any place that lives inside the project's source-code repo) to record PRD-like information.

But because AI coding agents really do benefit from having PRD-like info (i.e. a hierarchical breakdown of the "intended what" and "intended how" of the system that "should" exist in the repo, kept updated to reflect changing ideas about those intentions), they really want to record that type of info somewhere, so they can then reference it.

AI coding agents don't seem to have any "taste" (or maybe "confidence"?) when it comes to asserting that even if you don't already have a separate PRD-like file in the repo, you should have one, if you want the agent to do its job well, and so it would request you to let it create one (or just automatically do it.) Instead, they just shrug and cram the PRD stuff into whatever structure you do already have. Which, if you're starting fresh with a greenfield project, is usually just a README.

(I hypothesize that if you tell an AI coding agent to use Behavior-Driven Development [BDD] on a greenfield project, it'll probably lean toward maintaining its PRD-like info in the form of BDD test cases. Haven't tried this experiment yet; would be interested to know the outcome!)

For some reason AI coding agents seem to think a README should be a Product Requirements Document (PRD).

I think it's because most projects don't have any settled place (or at least, any place that lives inside the project's source-code repo) to record PRD-like information.

But because AI coding agents really do benefit from having PRD-like info (i.e. a hierarchical breakdown of the "intended what" and "intended how" of the system that "should" exist in the repo, kept updated to reflect changing ideas about those intentions), they really want to record that type of info somewhere, so they can then reference it.

AI coding agents don't seem to have any "taste" (or maybe "confidence"?) when it comes to asserting that even if you don't already have a separate PRD-like file in the repo, you should have one, if you want the agent to do its job well, and so it would request you to let it create one (or just automatically do it.) Instead, they just shrug and cram the PRD stuff into whatever structure you do already have. Which, if you're starting fresh with a greenfield project, is usually just a README.

(I hypothesize that if you tell an AI coding agent to use Behavior-Driven Development [BDD] on a greenfield project, it'll probably lean toward maintaining its PRD-like info in the form of BDD test cases. Haven't tried this experiment yet; would be interested to know the outcome!)

Gives a thoughtful explanation of why AI agents bloat READMEs and proposes an experiment to test it, though it has drifted away from the story's topic.
LatencyKills 2026-11-02 18:136/10first_handinsightful | root | parent [–]

That is exactly what happened in this case; the readme was the PRD.

Throughout the document Claude kept claiming that issues were "mitigated but not fixed". They were essentially bandaid fixes for things it couldn't figure out. When I pointed this out to the author he said, "Well Claude thinks it works."

I wonder what happens to software when enough people try to ship projects like this.

That is exactly what happened in this case; the readme was the PRD.

Throughout the document Claude kept claiming that issues were "mitigated but not fixed". They were essentially bandaid fixes for things it couldn't figure out. When I pointed this out to the author he said, "Well Claude thinks it works."

I wonder what happens to software when enough people try to ship projects like this.

A first-hand account of an AI-written README that served as a PRD, with a thoughtful question about where that leads.

Yup that makes sense. Thanks for the feedback, we'll make some changes shortly!

Yup that makes sense. Thanks for the feedback, we'll make some changes shortly!

The founder accepts usability feedback in good faith. It's brief but fine.
topaz_crane21 2026-11-02 18:01 | rewritten3/10snarkpersonal_attack | original | parent | prev [–]

The headline is right at the top: "Talk without talking. Input text at the speed of speech, silently and invisibly." That was enough for me to understand it, and the demo video impressed me even more.

original comment by jasonlotito

> Talk without talking. > Input text at the speed of speech, silently and invisibly.

I understood from just this. But the demo video impressed even further.

> Spent 30 seconds scrolling down to try to figure out what this is.

Did you try reading the site? Or maybe doing something other than just scrolling?

Does it need some form of subway surfer to get you to pay attention?

> Eventually clicked away from the site because it was taking too long to get to the point.

So yeah... subway surfer. This generation is cooked.

Took out the generational jab and the mocking questions, and kept the point that the headline already explains the product.

I would be fairly interested if this works without opening my mouth. Like, if you can nail _micro_ tongue movements, it would feel pretty close to thought.

I would be fairly interested if this works without opening my mouth. Like, if you can nail _micro_ tongue movements, it would feel pretty close to thought.

A genuine, on-topic comment about whether the device can pick up closed-mouth micro tongue movements.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 17:488/10first_handinformative | parent | next [–]

It actually can! Since the RF can see inside your mouth the system doesn't inherently need lip movements and can be fine tuned on what we call "internal speech". Note that this isn't the automatic tongue movements that occur when "thinking" words to yourself, but it's rather like mouthing with your lips closed. We don't often lead with this since it's weird for many people to do, but with a bit of practice, we have been able to get it down pretty well.

It actually can! Since the RF can see inside your mouth the system doesn't inherently need lip movements and can be fine tuned on what we call "internal speech". Note that this isn't the automatic tongue movements that occur when "thinking" words to yourself, but it's rather like mouthing with your lips closed. We don't often lead with this since it's weird for many people to do, but with a bit of practice, we have been able to get it down pretty well.

The founder explains, from first-hand experience, how the device can decode closed-mouth 'internal speech'.

Wow that's fascinating. I've added that bit to your text above - I hope that's ok! It answers what was emerging as a sort of mini-FAQ.

Edit: the more that I think about it the cooler and more important this feature seems!

Wow that's fascinating. I've added that bit to your text above - I hope that's ok! It answers what was emerging as a sort of mini-FAQ.

Edit: the more that I think about it the cooler and more important this feature seems!

A friendly, good-faith moderator note saying the founders' clarification was added to the story text.

[flagged]
hk__2 2026-11-02 18:006/10questioninsightful | parent | prev [–]

But how would you distinguish all the sounds that don’t require any tongue movement, like (most of?) the vowels?

But how would you distinguish all the sounds that don’t require any tongue movement, like (most of?) the vowels?

Asks a real technical question about how the system could tell apart vowels, which need little tongue movement.

Vowels definitely require tongue movement! Leave your mouth closed and whisper "a-e-i-o-u" and you can feel your tongue moving.

Vowels change the shape of your mouth's cavity to change which frequencies to emphasize ("formants") and we hear the differences in vowels by analyzing those formant patterns.

Vowels definitely require tongue movement! Leave your mouth closed and whisper "a-e-i-o-u" and you can feel your tongue moving.

Vowels change the shape of your mouth's cavity to change which frequencies to emphasize ("formants") and we hear the differences in vowels by analyzing those formant patterns.

Gives a clear correction about tongue movement in vowels, explains formants and suggests a simple way to check it yourself.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:086/10first_handinformative | root | parent | prev [–]

There's subtle changes in internal speech muscles as well often for those kinds of movements, and where it does seem ambiguous language context is usually enough to distinguish

There's subtle changes in internal speech muscles as well often for those kinds of movements, and where it does seem ambiguous language context is usually enough to distinguish

The founder explains how the system tells apart sounds that don't involve tongue movement.

I use the Vekta. I tried whispering and it doesn't feel right.

Throat mics don't work at all - see reviews online.

This is a different approach, so I am cautiously optimistic.

I use the Vekta. I tried whispering and it doesn't feel right.

Throat mics don't work at all - see reviews online.

This is a different approach, so I am cautiously optimistic.

A short firsthand comparison with other ways of inputting speech, such as whispering and throat mics.

Are there any health risks with this method?

Edit: mostly concerned about RF near my eyes for 8 hours a day.

Are there any health risks with this method?

Edit: mostly concerned about RF near my eyes for 8 hours a day.

A real, on-topic question about the health effects of wearing an RF device near the eyes all day.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:346/10first_handinformative | parent | next [–]

No, the RF is very low power and can safely be active on your face for long periods. We've done a lot of investigation and verification with safety. While doing R&D the first 2 months we collected hundreds of hours of data on ourselves with various configurations, so we made sure it was safe before :)

Also, the RF transmission only activates when you're actively dictating.

No, the RF is very low power and can safely be active on your face for long periods. We've done a lot of investigation and verification with safety. While doing R&D the first 2 months we collected hundreds of hours of data on ourselves with various configurations, so we made sure it was safe before :)

Also, the RF transmission only activates when you're actively dictating.

The founder answers the safety question directly and in good faith, though the safety claims aren't backed by specifics.
HIP_HOP 2026-11-02 18:12 | removed0/10joke | parent | prev | next [–]

Yeah, so a recent study discovered that talking silently makes other people harder to hear you so they think they have problem hearing.

Yeah, so a recent study discovered that talking silently makes other people harder to hear you so they think they have problem hearing.

A joke presented as a fake study, with no real answer to the health-risk question.
sandy_tern42 2026-11-02 18:11 | rewritten2/10low_effortsnark | original | parent | prev [–]

Sensorimotor debility is a real thing, and I'd be concerned that a device like this could make it worse rather than help.

original comment by hirako2000

Sensorimotor debility is a thing. This gadget surely won't help with it.

Kept the faint health concern that answers the parent's question and dropped the dismissive tone; it gives no mechanism or evidence.

I wonder if in a couple of years we gonna have some teeth implant that will capture sounds to our devices.

I wonder if in a couple of years we gonna have some teeth implant that will capture sounds to our devices.

A short but sincere speculation about where this technology could go next.

I've thought about learning sign language in order to communicate with the computer in a not-super-annoying way. Your solution... much more realistic. Cheers.

I've thought about learning sign language in order to communicate with the computer in a not-super-annoying way. Your solution... much more realistic. Cheers.

Short but sincere: compares the product to another quiet way of talking to a computer (sign language) the commenter had considered.
melvinmelih 2026-11-02 17:37 | removed0/10snarklow_effort | parent [–]

Great idea, if only we could use our hands and fingers to input information into the computer

Great idea, if only we could use our hands and fingers to input information into the computer

Sarcastic one-liner about keyboards that adds nothing to the parent's point about quiet input.
alexgoodhart 2026-11-02 19:01 | removed0/10low_effortcurmudgeonly | prev | next [–]

Q1 2027- unlikely

Q1 2027- unlikely

A bare dismissal of the ship date that gives no reasoning to engage with.

So it's a pair of glasses that can transcribe when you mouth words silently? I still don't know how it works, they say no cameras and it works with noise so I assume sort sort of reverse bone conducting?

So it's a pair of glasses that can transcribe when you mouth words silently? I still don't know how it works, they say no cameras and it works with noise so I assume sort sort of reverse bone conducting?

A real question about how the device works, with a reasonable guess at the mechanism.

Says right in the description that they are using radio

Says right in the description that they are using radio

A blunt but accurate pointer to the description, which says the device uses radio.
hazel_tern78 2026-11-02 18:34 | rewritten4/10informative | original | parent | prev [–]

It's not bone conduction. The post explains that it uses radio (RF) through your head, which can see inside your mouth.

original comment by jedberg

The whole paragraph above explains it. Radio through your head.

Drops the dismissive 'the whole paragraph explains it' and keeps the short correction about how it works.

That is fascinating. How do the radio waves get modulated? Do you think it is possible to use this technique for spying technology, with remote transmitters and receivers intersecting a person's facial anatomy to pick up the details of even a whispered or muttered conversation?

That is fascinating. How do the radio waves get modulated? Do you think it is possible to use this technique for spying technology, with remote transmitters and receivers intersecting a person's facial anatomy to pick up the details of even a whispered or muttered conversation?

Asks real questions about how the signal is modulated and whether the technique could be used for surveillance.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 17:519/10first_handinformativeinsightful | parent [–]

Most probably not possible to do this remotely, since this kind of RF needs to be transmitted through the face, and if you transmit them from too far away very few of them will actually take a path that goes through the face and comes back to your receiver.

They get modulated since your mouth is a complex dielectric environment. Tissue, water, and air have different dielectric constants (different permittivity to RF) and the motion of the muscles in this medium leads to interactions with the waves that fill it, changing their phase and amplitude as they propagate.

Most probably not possible to do this remotely, since this kind of RF needs to be transmitted through the face, and if you transmit them from too far away very few of them will actually take a path that goes through the face and comes back to your receiver.

They get modulated since your mouth is a complex dielectric environment. Tissue, water, and air have different dielectric constants (different permittivity to RF) and the motion of the muscles in this medium leads to interactions with the waves that fill it, changing their phase and amplitude as they propagate.

Clearly explains the dielectric mechanism and why remote eavesdropping is unlikely.

Great work!

Really like seeing the early prototypes here, and would love to see more on how the RF tech works on the website.

Are you able to patent it?

Great work!

Really like seeing the early prototypes here, and would love to see more on how the RF tech works on the website.

Are you able to patent it?

Asks real questions about how the RF technology works and whether it can be patented.

This is super cool. I think it's the first piece of additional hardware I've even considered pre-ordering.

This is super cool. I think it's the first piece of additional hardware I've even considered pre-ordering.

Sincere enthusiasm in good faith, with a small real signal that this commenter would consider pre-ordering.
intrasight 2026-11-02 18:298/10first_handinformative | parent [–]

I did research in this space about eight years ago. Our approach was to look at deformations in the ear canal. Rumor has it that Apple AirPods will have sensors in the ear canal. I was hoping to use those sensors with our app, but it looks like Apple is not going to provide access to the raw sensor data. I expected Apple is going to support subvocal speech pretty soon.

I did research in this space about eight years ago. Our approach was to look at deformations in the ear canal. Rumor has it that Apple AirPods will have sensors in the ear canal. I was hoping to use those sensors with our app, but it looks like Apple is not going to provide access to the raw sensor data. I expected Apple is going to support subvocal speech pretty soon.

The commenter did research in this area themselves and adds useful context on ear-canal sensing and Apple's likely plans.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:455/10first_handinformative | root | parent [–]

From my understanding decoding via ear deformation requires the mouthing to be quite exaggerated. I am also looking forward to Apple launching it soon though, hopefully it gets more people excited and aware about the category at least

From my understanding decoding via ear deformation requires the mouthing to be quite exaggerated. I am also looking forward to Apple launching it soon though, hopefully it gets more people excited and aware about the category at least

The founder replies in good faith and points out a technical limitation of ear-canal decoding: it needs exaggerated mouthing.

[deleted]
jstummbillig 2026-11-02 17:38 | removed0/10low_effort | prev | next [–]

Category: A product, that's obviously super useful, as long as it will work.

Category: A product, that's obviously super useful, as long as it will work.

A generic one-line remark that adds nothing about the product.

The tech sounds cool, but my guess is this product might work for anyone whose text to command ratio is very high. If the formatting and commanding are the main tasks, then this product would be more of a distraction for a fast typist.

Regarding the website, you should lead with product, its details, rather than founders shown in 360 degrees from various vantage points. It is distracting and frankly irritating.

The tech sounds cool, but my guess is this product might work for anyone whose text to command ratio is very high. If the formatting and commanding are the main tasks, then this product would be more of a distraction for a fast typist.

Regarding the website, you should lead with product, its details, rather than founders shown in 360 degrees from various vantage points. It is distracting and frankly irritating.

Gives real feedback on who the product is for and on the website; the bluntness is fine.
early_grebe89 2026-11-02 18:10 | rewritten2/10low_effortsnark | original | prev | next [–]

This reminds me of the Leap Motion I preordered, a novel input device that got a lot of hype but didn't hold up in everyday use.

original comment by polartx

Reminds me of the Leap Motion I preordered

An implied dismissal by comparison, reframed as a plain comparison to an earlier input device.
ideasphere 2026-11-02 17:52 | removed0/10tangential_annoyancelow_effort | prev | next [–]

Just scroll normally!

Just scroll normally!

A one-line complaint about the website's scrolling, with nothing about the product.

This is such a weird thing that I can't wait to try it out. I don't know, like it's so crazy that it has to be good

This is such a weird thing that I can't wait to try it out. I don't know, like it's so crazy that it has to be good

The enthusiasm is sincere and in good faith, but the comment adds little substance.

Does the model require internet access, or is it running entirely locally?

Does the model require internet access, or is it running entirely locally?

A relevant, genuine question about privacy and how the system is built.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:375/10first_handinformative | parent [–]

Yes, it requires internet access

Yes, it requires internet access

The founder gives a direct, factual answer to a real privacy question about how the product is built.

The "how it works" section on the website doesn't explain much about how it actually works. I assume there's custom hardware, as the post describes, but I couldn't find that stated anywhere on the site, so there's no indication of how big the interface electronics are.

original comment by airbreather

Website is shit, "how it works" tells you nothing much useful about how it works, and I assume there is some custom hardware (as described in the post above) but nowhere on the website I could see this actually said, and therefore zero indication of the size of the interface electronics etc etc

The criticism of the site's missing hardware details is real, so the insult was removed and the point kept.
ciefa 2026-11-02 17:48 | removed0/10tangential_annoyancecurmudgeonly | prev | next [–]

God do I hate websites that make you scroll to go through an animation, why do people still do this

God do I hate websites that make you scroll to go through an animation, why do people still do this

It's a complaint about the website's scroll animation and doesn't engage with the product.
cebert 2026-11-02 18:00 | removed0/10tangential_annoyancelow_effort | parent [–]

It is frustrating and makes me close a lot of sites

It is frustrating and makes me close a lot of sites

Agrees with a complaint about scroll animations on the site, which says nothing about the product.
replete 2026-11-02 18:08 | removed0/10tangential_annoyance | prev | next [–]

Infuriating website UX, you really must add the scrollbar back. Apple do shiny things like this but they know you can't get rid of the scrollbar and piss people off trying to look at information

Infuriating website UX, you really must add the scrollbar back. Apple do shiny things like this but they know you can't get rid of the scrollbar and piss people off trying to look at information

A complaint about the website's scrollbar, not about the product.

“Foundation models” I feel like this has lost all meaning? Can’t you just say “we train models on this data”?

“Foundation models” I feel like this has lost all meaning? Can’t you just say “we train models on this data”?

A blunt but fair criticism of the term "foundation models" that the founders can answer directly.
popupeyecare 2026-11-02 18:386/10first_handquestion | prev | next [–]

Preordered!

Can we use RF for other medical applications? As an anesthesiologist, we do nerve blocks before surgeries or for pain. One rough indicator that it's working is muscle paralysis. Also similar for botox.

Very interested.

Preordered!

Can we use RF for other medical applications? As an anesthesiologist, we do nerve blocks before surgeries or for pain. One rough indicator that it's working is muscle paralysis. Also similar for botox.

Very interested.

An anesthesiologist asks a real question about using RF to check muscle paralysis after nerve blocks or botox.

Not sure, but definitely sounds interesting! I do know there was one company trying to use mmWave RF to track patient vitals like breathing patterns and heart rate without having anything hooked up to / touching them

Not sure, but definitely sounds interesting! I do know there was one company trying to use mmWave RF to track patient vitals like breathing patterns and heart rate without having anything hooked up to / touching them

The founder answers in good faith and points to a related use of mmWave RF for contactless vitals monitoring.

Let's go! Love the idea. Like the analog to bone conduction earbuds. Just please don't turn into WisprFlow where they route the voice metadata, unbeknownst to many, to a third party partner who stores and mines it for who-knows-what. Good luck fellas.

Let's go! Love the idea. Like the analog to bone conduction earbuds. Just please don't turn into WisprFlow where they route the voice metadata, unbeknownst to many, to a third party partner who stores and mines it for who-knows-what. Good luck fellas.

Supportive comment that makes a useful comparison and raises a real privacy concern about voice data being routed to third parties.

Of course! Privacy is important!

Of course! Privacy is important!

A founder's short commitment to privacy; it's in good faith but says nothing specific.
bluegatty 2026-11-02 17:544/10tangential_annoyance | prev | next [–]

Why do you destroy communicating your very cool product with an annoying and counter intuitive scroll experience?

And after some time I could not figure out what this is?

Put this part: " building smart glasses that let you talk to your computer without talking out loud. You can mouth words silently and discreetly and the glasses decode them to text at the speed of speech."

right at the top and show someone doing that instead of hiding behind cryptic marketing.

Also, the product looks great.

Get your words out of the way 'say what it is'.

Very amazing tech though

Why do you destroy communicating your very cool product with an annoying and counter intuitive scroll experience?

And after some time I could not figure out what this is?

Put this part: " building smart glasses that let you talk to your computer without talking out loud. You can mouth words silently and discreetly and the glasses decode them to text at the speed of speech."

right at the top and show someone doing that instead of hiding behind cryptic marketing.

Also, the product looks great.

Get your words out of the way 'say what it is'.

Very amazing tech though

Blunt but constructive Show HN feedback on how the landing page explains the product, with a concrete fix and real praise.

That makes sense. We will implement that!

That makes sense. We will implement that!

A short, good-faith founder reply that accepts the feedback; it adds little but is fine as written.
proee 2026-11-02 18:005/10informative | prev | next [–]

There is a product by Subtle called Voicebuds that allows for super silent dictation. Looks like the product is not available for purchase yet, but I would prefer to have earbuds over glasses.

https://www.subtle.co

There is a product by Subtle called Voicebuds that allows for super silent dictation. Looks like the product is not available for purchase yet, but I would prefer to have earbuds over glasses.

https://www.subtle.co

Points to a relevant competing product and gives a form-factor preference, with a link.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:384/10questionfirst_hand | parent [–]

Yup those are pretty cool too! How do you feel about quiet whispering vs completely silent? Genuinely curious we haven't asked too many people

Yup those are pretty cool too! How do you feel about quiet whispering vs completely silent? Genuinely curious we haven't asked too many people

The founder asks a sincere question about whether users would prefer quiet whispering or fully silent input.

For me: whispering = evolution, silent = revolution. I'd like to see some studies demonstrating its safety.

For me: whispering = evolution, silent = revolution. I'd like to see some studies demonstrating its safety.

Directly answers the founder's question and raises a fair safety point about the RF sensing.

How have the glasses been received? I don't understand why they're required, is it only to have a consistent mount point for the radar sensor, relative to the face? Have you thought about a throat mic?

How have the glasses been received? I don't understand why they're required, is it only to have a consistent mount point for the radar sensor, relative to the face? Have you thought about a throat mic?

Asks good questions about why the design needs glasses, how the sensor is mounted, and whether a throat mic could work instead.

It looked like there was a throat mic in the first shot... it seems counterintuitive that you'd get better performance out of lidar on face muscles than on a throat mic.

It looked like there was a throat mic in the first shot... it seems counterintuitive that you'd get better performance out of lidar on face muscles than on a throat mic.

Engages the throat-mic question with a detail from the video and a fair technical doubt.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:187/10first_handinformative | root | parent [–]

No throat mic, the first image uses EMG (muscle electrical signal) sensors. A throat mic only works if you're still actually whispering (not fully silent) and is also a weird form factor for a consumer device, which is why we didn't go with it!

No throat mic, the first image uses EMG (muscle electrical signal) sensors. A throat mic only works if you're still actually whispering (not fully silent) and is also a weird form factor for a consumer device, which is why we didn't go with it!

The founder answers the question directly, explaining the EMG sensors and why they chose not to use a throat mic.

Apple recently a purchased a company with seemingly equivalent technical capabilities:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-qai-acquisition-lip-reading-tech-wearables/

Hope you guys are well-positioned patent-wise.

Apple recently a purchased a company with seemingly equivalent technical capabilities:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-qai-acquisition-lip-reading-tech-wearables/

Hope you guys are well-positioned patent-wise.

Points to a relevant Apple acquisition of comparable technology and raises a real question about competition and patents.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:396/10first_handinformative | parent [–]

Yup, Q.ai is different tech and we have our IP :)

They use speckle patterns of a laser shone onto the skin, which is sensitive down to tens of nanometers. Pretty cool tech

Yup, Q.ai is different tech and we have our IP :)

They use speckle patterns of a laser shone onto the skin, which is sensitive down to tens of nanometers. Pretty cool tech

The founder explains, with a technical detail, how the competitor's laser speckle approach differs from theirs.
capl 2026-11-02 18:13 | removed0/10snarklow_effortthread_removed | prev | next [–]

Watched the demo video… and if this is satire: incredibly well executed

Watched the demo video… and if this is satire: incredibly well executed

This removes the comment and its one reply. The reply, "It's not :)", only answers the satire jab and adds nothing a reader would miss.
aarushyadav 2026-11-02 18:39 | removed0/10low_effort | parent [–]

It's not :)

It's not :)

Reply in a thread removed with its parent.
contingencies 2026-11-02 18:40 | removed0/10low_effort | prev | next [–]

Much respect for actual innovation. I hope you get filthy rich.

Much respect for actual innovation. I hope you get filthy rich.

Friendly encouragement, but it adds nothing to the discussion.
sunny_bison15 2026-11-02 17:33 | rewritten3/10snarkcurmudgeonly | original | prev | next [–]

This seems over-engineered to me. If typing speed is the issue, people can train themselves to type really fast on a keyboard.

original comment by fowlie

Talk about over engineering a problem! If typing speed is an issue guess what, humans can train themselves to type really fast on a keyboard.

A real objection (training to type fast works instead) is kept, minus the sarcastic framing.

I think the problem to solve here is repetitive stress injury caused by typing

I think the problem to solve here is repetitive stress injury caused by typing

A short reply in good faith: it points out that the product could help with repetitive strain injury, not just typing speed.

In this case, I think the problem to solve is ergonomic issues with the keyboards used for typing

In this case, I think the problem to solve is ergonomic issues with the keyboards used for typing

A brief but real counterpoint that blames keyboard ergonomics rather than typing itself.

They are claiming 200+ wpm on a prototype. Half that speed would put you in the top tier of typists, and the number of people that get anywhere close to 200 is vanishingly small.

They are claiming 200+ wpm on a prototype. Half that speed would put you in the top tier of typists, and the number of people that get anywhere close to 200 is vanishingly small.

Disagrees with the parent on substance by comparing the claimed speed to real typing speeds.

It depends on what you’re typing. If you’re coding, it’s probably faster to type `{}[]();|` or 2,450,712 than to say it.

It depends on what you’re typing. If you’re coding, it’s probably faster to type `{}[]();|` or 2,450,712 than to say it.

Useful nuance: symbols and numbers in code are faster to type than to speak.
dapper_ocelot14 2026-11-02 18:34 | rewritten3/10snarklow_effort | original | root | parent [–]

A lot of coding these days isn't typed by hand. People describe what they want to an AI assistant in plain language, and that kind of input could suit speech well.

original comment by assumed_throwaw

I have some news for you about typing code by hand...

The coy jab hid a real point: AI-assisted coding is mostly natural-language prompting, so it suits voice input.
settsu 2026-11-02 18:013/10tangential_annoyanceinformative | prev | next [–]

FYI, the subvocal.company site is unscrollable with a mouse wheel in WebKit browsers on Mac (Safari, DDG, Kagi Orion), though the touchpad will work. No issues elsewhere (Mac non-WebKit, Win11, Ubuntu)

FYI, the subvocal.company site is unscrollable with a mouse wheel in WebKit browsers on Mac (Safari, DDG, Kagi Orion), though the touchpad will work. No issues elsewhere (Mac non-WebKit, Win11, Ubuntu)

A specific bug report on the site, written as useful feedback for the founders of a Show HN rather than as a complaint.
calm_hare42 2026-11-02 18:13 | rewritten1/10low_effortkept_for_replies | original | parent [–]

Thanks for the report, looking into it.

original comment by aarushyadav

Looking into it

The author's short acknowledgment of the bug report stays so that their follow-up saying it's fixed makes sense underneath.

this should be fixed now!

this should be fixed now!

A short, good-faith update from the founder saying a reported issue is fixed; it's useful to the subthread but has little content.
brisk_sable81 2026-11-02 17:49 | rewritten2/10low_effortcurmudgeonly | original | prev | next [–]

I worry that tools like this add to the isolation of modern life. I'd rather we keep speaking out loud and connecting with the people around us.

original comment by hippycruncher22

What's wrong with human connection and speaking. :( I feel like the isolation of this modern world is lame.

Took out the dismissive framing and kept the commenter's real worry about social isolation, though it's a generic tangent.

Maybe you don't want strangers around you hearing you say "Hey Claude wish my grandma happy birthday" as it's not yet morally okay to delegate such social tasks to the models

Maybe you don't want strangers around you hearing you say "Hey Claude wish my grandma happy birthday" as it's not yet morally okay to delegate such social tasks to the models

Wry, but it answers the parent with a real use case: privacy around socially awkward requests made to an AI.
233mhz 2026-11-02 18:15 | removed0/10jokesnark | root | parent | next [–]

Aha what a loser thing to do, I personally have a fleet of 347 agents running 24/7 talking to my parents, siblings, grandparents, friends, asking them how they're doing and wishing them a happy birthday when the time comes. I can finally focus on the important things!

Aha what a loser thing to do, I personally have a fleet of 347 agents running 24/7 talking to my parents, siblings, grandparents, friends, asking them how they're doing and wishing them a happy birthday when the time comes. I can finally focus on the important things!

A sarcastic joke about running AI agents to talk to family, with nothing to add to the discussion.
gentle_llama14 2026-11-02 18:05 | rewritten5/10personal_attack | original | root | parent | prev | next [–]

I think that example actually supports their point. Wishing your grandma happy birthday isn't something that should be delegated to an AI agent, and the social pressure to hide doing so is a healthy signal that it isn't okay.

This tech doesn't feel as dystopian as many recent AI innovations, but I do think it's a further step toward human disconnection.

original comment by qwertygnu

Your example proves their point perfectly. You shouldn't delegate wishing your grandma happy birthday to a fucking AI agent. And you should feel ashamed for doing so. And you should feel the social pressure to hide that fact if you do resort to it.

While this tech doesn't feel quite as dystopian as most recent AI innovations, I do think it is a further step in the direction of human disconnection.

The disagreement and the concern about disconnection stay; the profanity and the shaming of the parent are gone.
hk__2 2026-11-02 18:08 | removed0/10low_effortsnark | root | parent [–]

Well you both prove each other’s point ;)

Well you both prove each other’s point ;)

A quip with nothing behind it that adds no substance to the discussion.
internet_points 2026-11-02 18:29 | removed0/10jokelow_effort | root | parent | prev [–]

Haha, I can't tell if this is a parody or not

Haha, I can't tell if this is a parody or not

A one-line quip that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

There is no human connection typing words into a box, that's seems like what it's mostly replacing. Talking to your email client, talking to your AI agent. Lots of us are much faster speaking than typing and especially with AI, it doesn't matter a whole lot in my experience how polished the output is, the benefit from ending up with a lot more text because one can just talk freely is very beneficial.

There is no human connection typing words into a box, that's seems like what it's mostly replacing. Talking to your email client, talking to your AI agent. Lots of us are much faster speaking than typing and especially with AI, it doesn't matter a whole lot in my experience how polished the output is, the benefit from ending up with a lot more text because one can just talk freely is very beneficial.

A good-faith reply arguing that the device replaces typing rather than talking to people, backed by the author's own experience.

I can see this being useful on public transport where you don't want to bother people while taking notes verbally. It's not all about avoiding connection.

I can see this being useful on public transport where you don't want to bother people while taking notes verbally. It's not all about avoiding connection.

A good-faith reply that offers a concrete use case, taking notes on public transport, against the 'isolation' framing.

This is more a keyboard killer than a dinner party killer.

This is more a keyboard killer than a dinner party killer.

A short but real reframing: it pushes back on the parent by saying the device replaces typing, not conversation.

This is a little like replying to a show HN for a new kind of stylus input device with “what’s wrong with pen and paper”

This is a little like replying to a show HN for a new kind of stylus input device with “what’s wrong with pen and paper”

A blunt but fair analogy: the product is a computer input method, not a replacement for talking to people.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[deleted]

EDIT: I find talking in that manner in a public setup to be awkward and unpleasant, maybe that's just me.

That said, I think the idea of having a private walkie-talkie that connects on its own frequency for large crowded spaces to be very cool

EDIT: I find talking in that manner in a public setup to be awkward and unpleasant, maybe that's just me.

That said, I think the idea of having a private walkie-talkie that connects on its own frequency for large crowded spaces to be very cool

Gives an honest personal reaction to the social awkwardness and suggests another use case, all in good faith.
dang 2026-11-02 17:31 | removed0/10meta | parent [–]

> I like it but I don't want it, I'm not sure, it feels weird and cringy.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

p.s. Especially please don't do this when a thread is brand new. Such comments are the easiest to post, and therefore the quickest to appear, but by posting them, you steer the discussion straight away from the curious, thoughtful conversation we want here. Threads are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, so this is important.

> I like it but I don't want it, I'm not sure, it feels weird and cringy.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

p.s. Especially please don't do this when a thread is brand new. Such comments are the easiest to post, and therefore the quickest to appear, but by posting them, you steer the discussion straight away from the curious, thoughtful conversation we want here. Threads are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, so this is important.

Moderation note replying to a flagged comment that isn't in this edition, so it has nothing to respond to.

Apologies, I edited, can you tell me if my edit is ok? EDIT: happy to delete and repost my edit instead too

Apologies, I edited, can you tell me if my edit is ok? EDIT: happy to delete and repost my edit instead too

A meta exchange with the moderator about editing a comment, with nothing to add to the discussion.
dang 2026-11-02 17:35 | removed0/10meta | root | parent [–]

It's better. I've turned off the flag.

It's better. I've turned off the flag.

A moderation note about flagging that adds nothing to the discussion.
brisk_osprey77 2026-11-02 18:04 | rewritten4/10jokemeta | original | prev [–]

There is a long way from a prototype to production. Remember Google Glass, Oculus, Meta Ray-Ban, Apple Vision Pro? All of them were visionary, and we assumed people would like them, but ordinary people tend to want boring tech.

I suspect whispering to glasses will go the same way: visionaries will like it, and most people will go back to the boring option.

Personally, I would buy these glasses immediately. But I might also hate them, because I'd feel strange talking to myself.

I wish the team all the best. It's amazing, and if you connect it with ElevenLabs it could be very powerful.

original comment by sixtyj

There is a long way from a prototype to production. Remember Google Glasses, Oculus, Meta Rayban, Apple Vision Pro?

All of them are visionary and we would think that ppl gonna like them…

Well… ordinary people want boring tech.

This will be similar with whispering to glasses… Visionaries will like it… and return to missionary (boring) s*x (I hope that I don’t get a ban.)

Myself, I would buy these glasses immediately. But I would hate them as well as I would think I am insane (who wants to talk to yourself?).

Edit: Dang replied. I wish all the best to the team behind “whisper glasses”. It is amazing. Connect it with ElevenLabs and you rule the world. (Previous: It wasn’t meant a hate speech.)

The skepticism about whether people will adopt wearables is a real point, so I kept it and removed the crude joke and the comments about bans and moderation.
tawny_bison0 2026-11-02 18:09 | rewritten2/10metakept_for_replies | original | parent | next [–]

(No need to worry, you won't be banned.) My bigger concern is that this comes across as a shallow dismissal of someone's new work.

original comment by dang

(Don't worry, we're not going to ban you.)

A tasteless sex reference is one thing, but shallow-curmudgeonly dismissal of new work is the real sin here!

This moderator note is kept briefly so that the author's reply, which explains their view that people prefer boring tech, still has context.

This wasn’t meant as a hate. Sorry if it sound so. I really like them, I would buy them. Immediately. Sign me in.

But I think (and see) that people prefer boring tech. Whisper glasses is amazing. But most people will probably find it creepy. (Pareto applied.). I hope I am wrong. These guys are like from sci-fi.

This wasn’t meant as a hate. Sorry if it sound so. I really like them, I would buy them. Immediately. Sign me in.

But I think (and see) that people prefer boring tech. Whisper glasses is amazing. But most people will probably find it creepy. (Pareto applied.). I hope I am wrong. These guys are like from sci-fi.

A sincere clarification that adds a modest point: people may find these glasses creepy and prefer boring tech.

[flagged]



About | This page on Hacker News | HN Guidelines | Data: HN API

Curious Hacker News is an unofficial, experimental mirror and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by Hacker News or Y Combinator. Original comments are by their authors on news.ycombinator.com; rewritten text is AI-generated and was not written by the commenter.