Brad,
I just wrote a long, point-by-point response to this, but on reflection
I am not going to send it.
Instead, I would like to echo Terren Suydam's comment and say that I
think that you have overreacted here, because in my original reply to
you I had not the slightest intention of insulting you or your ideas.
The opening remark, for example, was meant to suggest that the QUESTION
you posed was a no-brainer (as in, easily answerable), not that your
ideas were brainless. You will note that there was a smiley in the
post, and it started with a question, not a declaration ("Isn't this a
bit of a no-brainer?".......).
Throughout, I have simply been trying to explain that there is a general
strategy for solving your initial question - a strategy quite well known
to many people - which applies to all versions of the question, whether
they be at the lexical level or the semantic level.
Valentina, it seems to me, was reacting to the humorous example I gave,
not mocking you personally.
Certainly, if you feel that I insulted you I am quite willing to
apologize for what (from my point of view) was an accident of prose style.
Richard Loosemore
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard,
Someone who can throw comments like "Isn't this a bit of a no-brainer?"
and "Keeping lists of 'things not known' is wildly, outrageously
impossible, for any system!" at people should expect a little bit of
annoyance in return. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Your responses to my initial post so far have been devoid of any real
substantive evidence or argument for the opinions you have expressed
therein. Your initial reply correctly identified an additional mechanism
that two other list members had previously reported (that surface
features could raise the "feeling of not knowing" without triggering an
exhaustive memory search). As I pointed out in my response to them,
this observation was "a good catch" but did not, in any way, show my
ideas to be "no-brainers" or "wildly, outrageously impossible." In that
reply, I posted a new example query that contained only common American
English words and was syntactically valid.
If you want to present an evidence-based or well-reasoned argument why
you believe my ideas are meritless, then let's have it. Pejorative
adjectives, ad hominem attacks and baseless opinions don't impress me much.
As to your cheerleader, she's just made my kill-list. The only thing
worse than someone who slings unsupported opinions around like they're
facts, is someone who slings someone else's unsupported opinions around
like they're facts.
Who is Mark Waser?
Cheers,
Brad
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Valentina,
Well, the "LOL" is on you.
Richard failed to add anything new to the two previous responses that
each posited linguistic surface feature analysis as being responsible
for generate the "feeling of not knowing" with that *particular*
(and, admittedly poorly-chosen) example query. This mechanism will,
however, apply to only a very tiny number of cases.
In response to those first two replies (not including Richard's), I
apologized for the sloppy example and offered a new one. Please read
the entire thread and the new example. I think you'll find Richard's
and your explanation will fail to address how the new example might
generate the "feeling of not knowing."
Brad,
Isn't this response, as well as the previous response directed at me,
just a little more "annoyed-sounding" than it needs to be?
Both Valentina and I (and now Mark Waser also) have simply focused on
the fact that it is relatively trivial to build mechanisms that
monitor the rate at which the system is progressing in its attempt to
do a recognition operation, and then call it as a "not known" if the
progress rate is below a certain threshold.
In particular, you did suggest the idea of a system keeping lists of
things it did not know, and surely it is not inappropriate to give a
good-naturedly humorous response to that one?
So far, I don't see any of us making a substantial misunderstanding of
your question, nor anyone being deliberately rude to you.
Richard Loosemore
Valentina Poletti wrote:
lol.. well said richard.
the stimuli simply invokes no signiticant response and thus our
brain concludes that we 'don't know'. that's why it takes no effort
to realize it. agi algorithms should be built in a similar way,
rather than searching.
Isn't this a bit of a no-brainer? Why would the human brain
need to
keep lists of things it did not know, when it can simply break the
word down into components, then have mechanisms that watch for the
rate at which candidate lexical items become activated .... when
this mechanism notices that the rate of activation is well below
the usual threshold, it is a fairly simple thing for it to announce
that the item is not known.
Keeping lists of "things not known" is wildly, outrageously
impossible, for any system! Would we really expect that the word
"ikrwfheuigjsjboweonwjebgowinwkjbcewijcniwecwoicmuwbpiwjdncwjkdncowk-
owejwenowuycgxnjwiiweudnpwieudnwheudxiweidhuxehwuixwefgyjsdhxeiowudx-
hwieuhyxweipudxhnweduiweodiuweydnxiweudhcnhweduweiducyenwhuwiepixuwe-
dpiuwezpiweudnzpwieumzweuipweiuzmwepoidumw" is represented
somewhere
as a "word that I do not know"? :-)
I note that even in the simplest word-recognition neural nets
that I
built and studied in the 1990s, activation of a nonword
proceeded in
a very different way than activation of a word: it would have been
easy to build something to trigger a "this is a nonword" neuron.
Is there some type of AI formalism where nonword recognition would
be problematic?
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
