Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Thus: building a NL parser, no matter how good it is, is of no use
whatsoever unless it can be shown to emerge from (or at least fit with)
a learning mechanism that allows the system itself to generate its own
understanding (or, at least, acquisition) of grammar IN THE CONTEXT OF A
MECHANISM THAT ALSO ACCOMPLISHES REAL UNDERSTANDING. When that larger
issue is dealt with, a NL parser will arise naturally, and any previous
work on non-developmental, hand-built parsers will be completely
discarded. You were trumpeting the importance of work that I know will
be thrown away later, and in the mean time will be of no help in
resolving the important issues.
Richard, you discount the possibility that said NL parser will play a key
role in the adaptive emergence of a system that can generate its own
linguistic understanding. I.e., you discount the possibility that, with the
right learning mechanism and instructional environment, hand-coded
rules may serve as part of the initial seed for a learning process that will
eventually generate knowledge obsoleting these initial hand-coded
rules.
It's fine that you discount this possibility -- I just want to point out that
in doing so, you are making a bold and unsupported theoretical hypothesis,
rather than stating an obvious or demonstrated fact.
Vaguely similarly, the "grammar" of child language is largely thrown
away in adulthood, yet it was useful as scaffolding in leading to the
emergence of adult language.
The problem is that this discussion has drifted away from the original
context in which I made the remarks.
I do *not* discount the possibility that an ordinary NL parser may play
a role in the future.
What I was attacking was the idea that a NL parser that does a wonderful
job today (but which is built on a formalism that ignores all the issues
involved in getting an adaptive language-understanding system working)
is IPSO FACTO going to be a valuable step in the direction of a full
adaptive system.
It was the linkage that I dismissed. It was the idea that BECAUSE the
NL parser did such a great job, therefore it has a very high probability
of being a great step on the road to a full adaptive (etc) language
understanding system.
If the NL parser completely ignores those larger issues I am justified
in saying that it is a complete crap shoot whether or not this
particular parser is going to be of use in future, more complete
theories of language.
But that is not the same thing as making a blanket dismissal of all
parsers, saying they cannot be of any use as (as you point out) seed
material in the design of a complete system.
I was objecting to Ed's pushing this particular NL parser in my face and
insisting that I should respect it as a substantial step towards full
AGI ..... and my objection was that I find models like that all show
and no deep substance precisely because they ignore the larger issues
and go for the short-term gratification of a parser that works really well.
So I was not taking the position you thought I was.
Richard Loosemore
-----
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=72135004-3fc959
