It's not that it's hard to feed data into OpenCog, whose representation capability is very flexible
It's simply that deep NNs running on multi-GPU clusters can process massive amounts of text very very fast, and OpenCog's processing is much slower than that currently... On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:57 PM Rob Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > > No problem Linas. > > From my point of view I'm encouraged that OpenCog is closer to an interesting > language model than I thought. > > I was surprised to see you discussing category theory in the context of a > language model. Category theory is motivated by formal incompleteness. To see > this applied to language is something I argued for long and hard. I remember > a thread on U. Bergen's "Corpora" list in 2007 with very little traction on > exactly this point. People could not see the relevance of formal > incompleteness for language. To see you, and others, embracing this is > progress. > > I'm glad you are deconstructing the grammar. You are probably forced to it by > the success of distributed representation these last few years. But at least > you are doing it. I feared some ghastly fixed Link Grammar with neural nets > just disambiguating. > > Instead I see Ben is right. My basic data formulation of the problem may well > be compatible with what OpenCog are doing. That's good. > > Though I am still confused by Ben's statement that "we can't currently feed > as much data into our OpenCog self-adapting graph as we can into a BERT type > model". > > What does an OpenCog network look like that it is hard to feed data into it. > Can you give an example? > > What does an OpenCog network with newly input raw language data look like? > > -Rob > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:21 PM Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:33 PM Rob Freeman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Linas, >>> >>> OK. I'll take that to be saying, "No, I was not influenced by Coecke et al. >> >> Note to self: do not write long emails. (I was hoping it would serve some >> educational purpose) >> >> I knew the basics of cat theory before I knew any linguistics. I skimmed the >> Coecke papers, I did not see anything surprising/unusual that made me want >> to study them closely. Perhaps there are some golden nuggets in those >> papers? What might they be? >> >> So, no, I was not influenced by it. >> >>> For all that, I can't figure out if you are contrasting yourself with their >>> treatment or if you like their treatment. >> >> >> I don't know what thier treatment is. After a skim, It seemed like word2vec >> with some minor twist. Maybe I missed something. >>> >>> >>> I quite liked their work when I came across it. In fact I had been thinking >>> for some time that category theory has something the flavour of a gauge >>> theory. >> >> >> Yellow flag. Caution. I wouldn't go around saying things like that, if I >> were you. The problem is that I've got a PhD in theoretical particle physics >> and these kinds of remarks don't hold water. >> >>> I have no problem with the substance of it. I just don't think it is >>> necessary. At least for the perceptual problem. The network is a perfectly >>> good representation for itself. >> >> >> To paraphrase: "I know that the earth goes around the sun. I don't think >> it's necessary to understand Kepler's law". For most people, that's a >> perfectly fine statement. Just don't mention black holes in the same breath. >> >> > I say you can't resolve above the network. Simple enough for you? >> >> Too simple. No clue what that sentence means. >> >> > '"fixed"? What is being "lost"? What are you "learning"? What do you mean >> > by "training"? What do you mean by "representation"? What do you mean by >> > "contradiction"?'... >> > But if you haven't understood them, it will probably be easier to use >> > your words than argue about them endlessly. >> >> ??? >> >> > Anyway, in substance, you just don't understand what I am proposing. Is >> > that right? >> >> I don't recall seeing a proposal. Perhaps I hopped in at the wrong end of an >> earlier conversation. >> >> I'm sorry, this conversation went upside down really fast. I've hit dead end. >> >> --linas > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "The dewdrop world / Is the dewdrop world / And yet, and yet …" -- Kobayashi Issa ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T581199cf280badd7-Mcf61623c192a8a81a07f18d1 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
