Ed Porter wrote:
Richard Loosemore=====> None of the above is relevant. The issue is not
whether toy problems
set within the current paradigm can be done with this or that search
algorithm, it is whether the current paradigm can be made to converge at
all for non-toy problems.
Ed Porter=====> Richard, I wouldn't call a state of the art NL parser that
matches parse trees in 500K dimensions a toy problem. Yes, it is much less
than a complete human brain, but it is not a toy problem.
This is a toy problem.
Parsing is a deep problem? Do you understand the relationship between
parsing NL and extracting semantics? Do you understand what this great
NL parser would do if confronted with a syntactically incorrect but
contextually meaningful sentence? Has it been analysed to see what its
behavior is on ambiguous sentences? Could it learn to cope with someone
speaking a pidgin version of NL, or would someone have to write an
entire grammar for the language before the system could even start
parsing it? Can it generate syntactically correct sentences that
express an idea? Can it cope with speech errors, recgnising the nature
o fteh error and backfilling, or does it just collapse with "no viable
parse"? Would the parser have to be completely rewritten in the future
when someone else finally solves the problem of representing the
semantics of language?
Finally, if you are impressed by the claim about "500K dimensions" then
what can I say? Can you explain to me in what sense it matches parse
trees in 500K dimensions, and why that is so impressive?
Perhaps I am being unnecessarily hard on you, Ed. I don't mean to be
personally rude, you know, but it is sometimes exhausting to have
someone trying to teach you how to suck eggs....
Richard Loosemore
With regard to Hecht-Nielsen's sentence completion program it is arguably a
toy problem, but it operates extremely efficiently (i.e., converges) in an
astronomically large search space, with a significant portion of that search
space having some arguable activation. The fact that there is such
efficient convergence in such a large search space is meaningful, and the
fact that you just dismiss it, as you did in your last email as a trivial
publicity stunt is also meaningful.
Ed Porter
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=71714474-5576ff
