Ben Goertzel wrote:
> yet I still feel you dismiss the text-mining approach too glibly...
No, but text mining requires a language model that learns while mining. You
can't mine the text first.
Agreed ... and this gets into subtle points. Which aspects of the
language model
need to be adapted while mining, and which can remain fixed? Answering this
question the right way may make all the difference in terms of the viability of
the approach...
ben
Given the history of evolution of language... ALL aspects of the
language model need to be adaptive, but some need to be more easily
adapted than others. E.g., adding words needs to be something that's
easy to do. Combining words and eliding pieces more difficult (but
that's how languages transition from forms without verb endings to forms
with verb endings).
E.g., the -ed past tense suffix of verbs is derived from the word "did"
(as in "derive did" instead of "derived" in the previous sentence).
If you go looking you find transitions where the order of subject, verb
and object flip, and many other permutations. If you don't find a
permutation, this doesn't mean it never happened and will never happen,
but rather that most of the evidence is missing, so many rare events
aren't recorded. There probably actually *are* some transitions that
have zero probability, but we don't know what they are. So just make
some transitions extremely improbable. (Who would have predicted
"l33tspeak" ahead of time?)
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
