User Controls
Thanked Posts by Lanny
-
2017-09-24 at 10:49 AM UTC in I have single-handedly condensed all of language into consisting of 4 subsets.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Yeah I was wondering about linguistic perspectives being used vs statistical ML techniques, and what you meant by it, what the distinction between the two are in this specific field.
From my understanding, normal machine learning techniques are used to solve abstract or highly complex problems through trial and error rather than systemizing it and breaking it down into exact general rules. So for example, you can teach the AI the abstract idea of what is a hotdog and what is not a hotdog by feeding it 50000000000000 images of hotdog and as many not-hotdog images as possible, and eventually it gets really, really good at sorting hotdog vs not hotdog.
Whereas otherwise you would have to directly write in "X means it's hotdog, Y means it's not hotdog" conditions.
Am I understanding correctly that that is kind of what it is with language? In this case the linguistic approach would be to create a map of all the rules and exceptions of the language perfectly, and then just program that.
Would you say that an engineer could probably more easily create an AI for dealing with (as an example) Lojban Vs English (assuming equal, thorough knowledge of both)?
Right, that's pretty much it. Orthodox ML approaches treat language, or vision, or cognition, or any other task we might want to automate as an exercise in mapping stochastic inputs to outputs, a system governed more or less by a set of probabilistic weights and some equation that combines them. N images of hotdogs are used to predict if the next image encountered is a hotdog or not.
The heterodoxy maintains this is a fundamentally futile strategy, that language is governed by a finite number of laws (allowing for a finite set of exceptions to each) and that any system that seeks to understand language needs to understand those laws. But then the term "understand" is interesting, commercial AI research doesn't really care about "understanding", it's not a word in their vocabulary, the focus is on problem solving. I tend to think the course we should be interested in is understanding, but from experience problem solving approaches have solved more human problems than understanding approaches.
It's an interesting question what Lojban means to the "understanding" model. On the one hand Winograd cases resolve to a simple Turing test under Lojban, that is computers can parse Lojban sentences unambiguously, but most advocates of understanding models will say understanding language is more than being able to form a parse tree so it's still irrelevant since language tasks are about meaning rather than parsing.
As to the point about directly writing some rules about "X means hotdog, Y means it's not a hotdog", this is very close to the distinction between these two approaches but is very slightly too reductive. The heterodoxy might relegate the particular task of discriminating hotdogs from non-hotdogs to some automated process but fundamentally the parameters to that process ought to yield some information about "hotdogness" rather than statistical artifacts which has no meaning independent of the recognition context. A more concrete example might be that the understanding model would suppose the task of recognizing hotdogs and drawing hotdogs relies on the same internal structure, while the orthodox statistical approach posits no necessary relationship between these tasks: drawing hotdogs draws on one learning set of drawn hotdogs while recognizing hotdogs relies on another of actual hotdogs representing the general class of thing recognizable as hotdogs.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-24 at 8:06 AM UTC in I have single-handedly condensed all of language into consisting of 4 subsets.Taxonomy of language is really interesting though. You can look at the literature POS taggers for algorithmic approaches. It's one of the few areas in AI where linguistic perspectives have been seriously considered (vs. like general statistical ML techniques which prefer to ignore domain knowledge).The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-23 at 8:40 PM UTC in Want to move to a city where there's life at every hour, and everything is lit up
Originally posted by mmQ "Literally"
The streets are paved with dead hookers, every building is built out of them with meth used as mortar, the windows are made out of pure crystal, the lights powered by running electricity through meth shards until they heat up enough to glow. Literally every human there is a hooker. Instead of cars you hop on a methed up hooker's back to get around. Instead of dice at the table there are shaped shards. Literally nothing but meth and hookers -
2017-09-22 at 11:16 AM UTC in why do women have no valueYou will never own a carThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-22 at 10:28 AM UTC in You can judge a poster's worth by the amount of videos they postdaily reminder videoposters are low IQ postersThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-21 at 9:40 PM UTC in THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS 'THE CLOUD'!
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-20 at 6:57 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Get Rekt, Faggot!the skin peeling though, lolThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-19 at 10:49 PM UTC in My Friend Is Definitely OffSWIM has a huge penisThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-17 at 2:03 AM UTC in TempleOSTerry Davis is my spirit animalThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-08 at 8:16 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Click Here for AIDSThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-19 at 7:47 AM UTC in Give me a custom user title or I will kill myself
-
2017-09-19 at 7:02 AM UTC in 'Nazism' Used as Pretext for Free-Speech CrackdownsMy favorite justification for censorship campaigns, especially those of public shaming, is the "shifting the overton window" argument. Like the idea that making it impossible to publicly hold opposing idea without being ridiculed, fired, or jailed is what's going to stamp out intolerance. I don't know if the idea is that this is going to matriculate into more insular modes of discourse or that we'll eventually go on a PC crusade and somehow eliminate any medium where you can express the "bad" ideas. But in either case the premise is so ludicrous to think it's going to make people less bigoted, even if you think that would be a great thing, I'd laugh at it if its effects on our society weren't so real and so terrifying.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-19 at 6:40 AM UTC in Give me a custom user title or I will kill myselfso when's the suicide planned for?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-18 at 2:06 AM UTC in 20 tips for having sex with dogsNot an SG threadThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-18 at 4:34 AM UTC in Why doesn't it auto-subscribe to threads you've created?ok, should be fixed nowThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-18 at 6:56 AM UTC in Contest kontest kawn-tesst!!!!7¶ FOR SALE
¶ BABY SHOES
¶ NEVER USEDThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-17 at 1:27 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
Originally posted by RisiR † Stop acting like that made any sense, lol.
I'm high, anything I say makes sense. I hope.
Originally posted by Sophie I hardly think "man" as a species chooses to be rational. In fact most of the time, people are highly irrational. But i guess you could somehow explain that as "slave to the passions" as well.
Sure, but when you say "people are anything but rational" this comes with an edge of disdain. Scarcely anyone wouldn't claim to adhere to general principles of rationality, even if they're really bad at acting rationally. Which just makes the point. Even when people demonstrate exemplary logic, really think about arguments and try way harder than almost anyone does to be unbiased they don't do it for the sake being rational itself. Why would anyone be motivated to be or appear rational when they weren't if the thing that would propose to motivate that behavior was absent in the first place?
Human rationality can't justify itself in the same way all formal systems can't. Indeed, formal propositional calculus is fascinating among formal systems in that it contains no axioms, literally every theorem is hypothetical. The reason one learns to reason is nothing short of an initial belief that it will somehow satisfy some baser need. It's only much later that the hubris touches the fringes of our minds which suggests that logic was somehow written on the wall of the universe. -
2017-09-18 at 4:35 AM UTC in Can i not have to do capatchas when i post?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-17 at 3:11 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
Originally posted by RisiR † Ok.
The concepts of logic and rationality are both man made and therefor have that very problem of bias to begin with. The entire frame of judgement is limited. I think I agree with you but what's the point? Do you think your idea isn't bound to that? It is. No idea can be evaluated without judging it within the frame of human logic. Mhmmm.. I see, I think. There is probably no solution to that problem. Bias is fundamentally ingrained within the concepts.
It is, definitely. Any argument that seeks to justify reason or argument in rational terms itself is comic. There's no meaningful logical analysis to be given, which is why aesthetics is interesting.
Originally posted by RisiR † What does aesthetics mean in this context, though?
One project of aesthetics, among several, is to explain in some sense human preference. It's by preference that we justify logic, we see the cultural image of truth and then long for it, logical discourse our tool. By studying aesthetics we study why we prefer this mode of being over others, I argue that in no small part does the drama of Socrates as a defiant champion of truth, and the cultural struggling for truth that followed him, govern our notion of truth. If we can do nothing else in the study of aesthetics we can at least understand we could have formed preferences for other ways of thinking, other possible systematic modes but also non-systematic ones, and understand that no argument conjured in this mode can justify it over the another.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-17 at 2:16 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
Originally posted by Sophie No you don't do it to appear rational you do it in order to learn some sort of truth.
What does a child who can solve a simple logic puzzle know about truth? It's pretty well acknowledged that buying books to put on a bookcase to imitate the cultural meaning of being well read is a real phenomenon in our society. People who are bad at rational thought but maintain the self-image of being rational are, by their class definition, the ones bad at being rational. But why would we suspect any greater purity of intention from those who are good at being rational? You need your whole socratic dogma, seated in utopian ionian and airy symbolism of Greece, to make the idea of truth as something worthwhile in itself make sense. You need to drink that hemlock and understand that sublime moment of defiance before it's possible to imagine yourself part of some external objective reality. There is no theorem of logic that says "pursuing truth is good".I don't know about propositional calculus but are you trying to tell me logic isn't FUCKIN MENTAL to the Universe
Yes! Where on earth do you propose to find empirical evidence for formal logic? Its success as predictive survival strategy? Any TC language can be interpreted to model our universe in absolutely any circumstance "logic" can, but no more can logic claim to be some inevitable subsystem of the universe than can an overhyped game by a bald dude with self-esteem issues. It's not fundamental, it's a cultural strategy that was successful and nothing more. Ask yourself "why is affirming the consequent a fallacy". We could imagine a system of logic where it's a valid logical maneuver and every theorem in traditional systems of logic remains valid. There is no natural reason this system of rules is true and other aren't. We only take it up because it's what our ancestors did, because someone at some point convinced you thinking logically had some kind of benefit.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
