I should have said something like: We can build higher models by communicating, by observing, by applying previous knowledge and by applying our imagination to an ideative construct.)
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, > I just read the first message in this thread. Yes, successive layers of > speech may be necessary to determine what is being referenced. And of > course having other information from other IO modalities about the referent > would help. But first we have to figure out a way to do it with a computer. > I think the idea I have in mind can be examined with examples. When you > mentioned "payload" I had a pretty good idea about how you wanted to use > the word. However, when you started off by saying that computerized text > understanding is very similar to patent classification I realized that I > did not have a good idea about the methodology of understanding that you > were associating with the word. So I inhibited myself from making any > assumptions about the words that you were using until I had a chance to > reread what you were saying. > > As I wrote, my new theory of understanding is based on acquiring insight > into the specialization of the concepts that are being considered. So, > while your use of the term payload to refer to something that I might call > the semantic content or the intended meaning was not that different from > what I thought you meant, your underlying theory about discovering the > meaning was. Yes, if we don't understand something we need to speak about > it with different kinds of remarks (or study it in other ways). However, I > disagree that these are successive layers where all the details of > differentiation of speech can be found on some bottom-level subclass. I > just don't think it is that simple. My latest model of comprehension is > that the complexity of knowledge is only found in a growing awareness of > conceptual specialization (where concepts are either based on a group > of shared concepts or from a process of observation and conjecture tied to > some personal concepts. In other words we can build higher models by > communicating or by using our imaginations.) In my opinion, the basis of > differentiation or specialization will not be found in some bottom-level > subclass but in examining some construct of thought using different ways to > think about it. > > I now have a simplified model of what you were talking about in my mind. > I can generalize this. I see you believe that there is a hierarchy of > detail which would reveal the specialized meanings of words. I will > remember this about you and look for it in other ideas that you talk about > and I will look for in other people's ideas. (I disagree with the single > hierarchy, a general hierarchy of differentiation and the bottom-level full > of details. To my thinking these are metaphors which are standing in as > substitutes for effective methods.) > > I did not have a substantial disagreement with most of the other things > you said in this, the first message of this thread. The fact that you > mentioned that an inability to precisely understand what someone said might > lead to a mistaken misinterpretation of ignorance was a confirmation of my > opinion that you can be open-minded and that you are able to use this > ability to discover a context of misunderstanding in ways that some people > are not. By being open minded one can see possibilities that closed-minded > people may miss. This is an example of a conceptual specialization and it > can be tied into the meaning of language even when the language is not > about the subject of being open close minded. > > Jim > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Steve Richfield < > [email protected]> wrote > >> *Jim, et al,* >> >> *I'm starting a new thread with this...* >> >> It is my theory that computerized speech and text understanding has >> eluded developers for the past ~40 years, because of a lack of a >> fundamental understanding of the task, which turns out to be very similar >> to patent classification. >> >> When classifying a patent, successive layers of sub-classification are >> established, until only unique details distinguish one patent from another >> in the bottom-level subclass. When reviewing the sub-classifications that a >> particular patent is filed within, combined with the patent’s title, what >> the patent is all about usually becomes apparent to anyone skilled in the >> art. >> >> However, when a patent is filed into a different patent filing system, >> e.g. filed in a different country where the sub-classifications may be >> quite different, it may be possible that the claims overlap the claims of >> other patents, and/or unclaimed disclosure would be patentable in a >> different country. >> >> Similarly, when you speak or write, in your own mind, most of your words >> are there to place a particular “payload” of information into its proper >> context, much as patent disclosures place claims into the state of an art. >> However, your listeners or readers may have a very different context in >> which to file your words. They must pick and choose from your words in an >> effort to place some of your words into their own context. What they end up >> placing may not even be the “payload” you intended, but may be words you >> only meant for placement. Where no placement seems possible, they might >> simply ignore your words and file *you* as being ignorant or deranged. >> >> Many teachers have recorded a classroom presentation and transcribed the >> recording, only to be quite surprised at what they actually said, which can >> sometimes be the opposite of what they meant to say. Somehow the class >> understood what they meant to say, even though their statement was quite >> flawed. When you look at these situations, the placement words were >> adequate, though imperfect, but the payload was okay. Indeed, where another >> person’s world model is nearly identical to yours, very few placement words >> are needed, and so these words are often omitted in casual speech. >> >> These omitted words fracture the structure of around half of all >> sentences “in the wild”, rendering computerized parsing impossible. Major >> projects, like the Russian Academy of Science’s Russian Translator project, >> have wrestled with this challenge for more than a decade, with each new >> approach producing a better result. The results are still far short of >> human understanding due to the lack of a human-level domain context to >> guide the identification and replacement of omitted words. >> >> As people speak or write to a computer, the computer must necessarily >> have a *very* different point of view to even be useful. The computer >> must be able to address issues that you can not successfully address >> yourself, so its knowledge must necessarily exceed your own in its subject >> domain. This leads to some curious conclusions: >> >> 1. Some of your placement words will probably be interpreted as >> “statements of ignorance” by the computer and so be processed as valuable >> payload to teach you. >> >> 2. Some of your placement words will probably refer to things outside >> of the computer’s domain, and so must be ignored, other than being >> recognized as non-understandable restrictions on the payload, that may >> itself be impossible to isolate. >> >> 3. Some of your intended “payload” words must serve as placement, >> especially for statements of ignorance. >> >> My invention seeks to intercept words written to other people who >> presumably have substantial common domain knowledge. Further, the computer >> seeks to compose human-appearing responses, despite its necessarily >> different point of view and lack of original domain knowledge. While this >> is simply not possible for the vast majority of writings, the computer can >> simply ignore everything that it is unable to usefully respond to. >> >> If you speak a foreign language, especially if you don’t speak it well, >> you will immediately recognize this situation as being all too common when >> listening to others with greater language skills than your own speaking >> among themselves. The best you can do is to quietly listen until some point >> in the conversation when you understand enough of what they are saying, and >> you have something useful to add to the conversation. >> >> Note the similarity to the advertising within the present Google Mail, >> where they select advertisements based upon the content of email that is >> being displayed. Had Google performed a deeper analysis they could probably >> eliminate ~99% of the ads as not relating to users’ needs and greatly >> improve the users’ experience, and customize the remaining 1% of the ads to >> precisely target the users. >> >> That is very much the goal with my invention, where the computer knows >> about certain products and solutions to common problems, etc., and scans >> the vastness of the Internet to find people whose words have stated or >> implied a need for things in the computer’s knowledge base, and have done >> so in terms that the computer can “understand”. >> Steve >> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
