two thoughts on hofstadter’s take on AI translation in the Atlantic: 1. His examples are excellent and show ways in which languages is not just mastering syntax-lexicon-morphology code but requires real understanding of subject areas under discussion (and *not* under discussion)
-
Show this thread
-
This is the counter-Enlightenment theory of Language, Charles Taylor calls it “Hamann Herder Heidegger” and has lots of good, accessible essays on it Good to understand for interpretation, meaning in general
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
2. DH notes google can’t understand meaning yet: true. He thinks the problem is they’re not even looking at meaning yet, just brute-forcing statistical connections: probably false.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Is it really false? What's your reasoning here?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Yeah I saw them. Are you saying that Google aren't simply brute forcing connections, or that they are looking at meaning, or both?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_
well first did you read the article I mentioned? might be easier, since the sense in which eg MC methods are brute force as opposed to coding knowledge-based heuristics will be clear if you see Hofstadter’s contrast btw AI and “understanding”
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No I haven't. I will give it a read, though I might even be able to guess what he says - that machine learning is missing the point?
-
-
Replying to @_Vimothy_
Just read what he says and his examples and you’ll grasp my pt
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.