It is not necessary to calculate the meaning and knowledge when they can be taken from the computer memory.
In the words of the great classic Aristotle, "the famous, it turns out, is known to few . "
The linguists of the whole world are subject to one pernicious illusion, believing that if they manage to build a “correct syntactic graph” (that is, a “tree of phrases”), then in this case, they will finally solve this damn natural-machine processing problem. texts (eyat). So linguists are searching day and night for some mythical connections and relationships between words (semantic units) in sentences and paragraphs of texts. Yes, and cybernetic connected to this unsuccessful search. Half a century has passed of such research, and the cart, as they say, is still there. This graph is not built in any way, giving many years a steady 50% error. Already hundreds of millions of dollars spent. Only one project "Watson" is worth something. But, in principle, these "connections and relationships" are not in actual fact. All this, if you carefully think about it, artificial science-like fictions, because of which, in fact, the progress in creating a technology for meaningful processing of it has reached a dead end, where it is now.
Linguists are like those aliens, in whose hands an ordinary chicken egg fell. Here they can study it this way and that. And measure the length and breadth, and weigh, and enlighten with X-rays, and examine the shell on the composition, and measure its Mohs hardness, and clarify the brittleness, and color the calorimeter. In general, to spend everything that can be measured, but to understand how it is formed, the poor people can not, because the chicken does not know and did not know. Likewise, the natives of the oceanic islands of our planet could not understand how this transistor receiver brought to them by Western civilization could produce articulate sounds or sound melodies. And no matter how they studied this receiver, tried it on a tooth or on a taste, they themselves would never understand that such a device also needs a radio station. A similar picture is observed with linguists who study it as a product (egg, transistor) of human thinking (chicken, radio station), without paying attention to the "generator (producer) of the egg" itself.
')
And what then do brain scientists? Why should not linguists and cybernetics unite with them and at the junction of the three disciplines not try to find the desired result. But no! It turns out that brain specialists are also busy studying their “egg product,” that is, the gray matter. As soon as they no longer measured it and did not study it, right up to the very atoms, that is, according to the very dendrites and axons. Here, even the "neuron-shaped semantic network" was invented in this field. Yes, just use it as a goat of milk, as it is also impotent in terms of the possibility of meaningful perception of it. Or maybe philologists here would say their weighty word? After all, they have something to do with thinking. Unfortunately, they cannot help either, since they are passionate about the external manifestations of human mental activity (this is their “egg”), and the “thinking processes” are here again behind the scenes.
So what to do? And exactly one thing is to study the procedures of our thinking and try to implement them in the computer plane. After all, a person, starting to comprehend colloquial speech, simply simply does not know about the existence of morphology and syntax, which he will still have to learn later in school, does not even think about the connections and relationships between words, and does not calculate predicates, but simply begins to speak and understand what others are saying to him. This happens with the help of the so-called “Patterns of Behavior of Images” (MPO), which people memorize and accumulate in their memory all their lives, perceiving the surrounding reality and building a virtual “Model of the Universe” (MM) in their minds. Namely, these MPO and MM help us to decipher the verbal code with which the thought forms of the individual creating the verbal or epistolary language messages are encrypted. Simply speaking, people understand each other not directly with the help of the mathematical-statistical processing of “verbal relationships”, but attracting these same IGOs ​​to extract meaning from the message, as a kind of intention of the author of this message. So the computer should be taught to extract (recognize) these IGOs ​​in the text and memorize them, bringing them into their machine memory. And in order for the computer to learn this craft, in addition, you still need to bring everything to a formalized form. That is, to formalize the procedures for extracting meaning, to formalize the knowledge gained, having created, at the same time, not a database, as is being done now, but a full-fledged “Knowledge Base” (KB), so that there is not a highly primitive Data Mining, but already a highly efficient Knowledge Mining ". Finally, we must learn not to calculate meaning and knowledge, but simply to get them out of the BR in the same heuristic-associative way, just as all people do. But this computer linguistics, just, and can not.
It’s a pity, of course, that a lot of resources (intellectual, material, time) were spent on achieving such an understanding, but it’s also encouraging that there are already the first enthusiasts of researchers who follow this new unbeaten path, getting the first and very promising results.
The linguists of the whole world are subject to one pernicious illusion, believing that if they manage to build a “correct syntactic graph” (that is, a “tree of phrases”), then in this case, they will finally solve this damn natural-machine processing problem. texts (eyat). So linguists are searching day and night for some mythical connections and relationships between words (semantic units) in sentences and paragraphs of texts. Yes, and cybernetic connected to this unsuccessful search. Half a century has passed of such research, and the cart, as they say, is still there. This graph is not built in any way, giving many years a steady 50% error. Already hundreds of millions of dollars spent. Only one project "Watson" is worth something. But, in principle, these "connections and relationships" are not in actual fact. All this, if you carefully think about it, artificial science-like fictions, because of which, in fact, the progress in creating a technology for meaningful processing of it has reached a dead end, where it is now.
Linguists are like those aliens, in whose hands an ordinary chicken egg fell. Here they can study it this way and that. And measure the length and breadth, and weigh, and enlighten with X-rays, and examine the shell on the composition, and measure its Mohs hardness, and clarify the brittleness, and color the calorimeter. In general, to spend everything that can be measured, but to understand how it is formed, the poor people can not, because the chicken does not know and did not know. Likewise, the natives of the oceanic islands of our planet could not understand how this transistor receiver brought to them by Western civilization could produce articulate sounds or sound melodies. And no matter how they studied this receiver, tried it on a tooth or on a taste, they themselves would never understand that such a device also needs a radio station. A similar picture is observed with linguists who study it as a product (egg, transistor) of human thinking (chicken, radio station), without paying attention to the "generator (producer) of the egg" itself.
')
And what then do brain scientists? Why should not linguists and cybernetics unite with them and at the junction of the three disciplines not try to find the desired result. But no! It turns out that brain specialists are also busy studying their “egg product,” that is, the gray matter. As soon as they no longer measured it and did not study it, right up to the very atoms, that is, according to the very dendrites and axons. Here, even the "neuron-shaped semantic network" was invented in this field. Yes, just use it as a goat of milk, as it is also impotent in terms of the possibility of meaningful perception of it. Or maybe philologists here would say their weighty word? After all, they have something to do with thinking. Unfortunately, they cannot help either, since they are passionate about the external manifestations of human mental activity (this is their “egg”), and the “thinking processes” are here again behind the scenes.
So what to do? And exactly one thing is to study the procedures of our thinking and try to implement them in the computer plane. After all, a person, starting to comprehend colloquial speech, simply simply does not know about the existence of morphology and syntax, which he will still have to learn later in school, does not even think about the connections and relationships between words, and does not calculate predicates, but simply begins to speak and understand what others are saying to him. This happens with the help of the so-called “Patterns of Behavior of Images” (MPO), which people memorize and accumulate in their memory all their lives, perceiving the surrounding reality and building a virtual “Model of the Universe” (MM) in their minds. Namely, these MPO and MM help us to decipher the verbal code with which the thought forms of the individual creating the verbal or epistolary language messages are encrypted. Simply speaking, people understand each other not directly with the help of the mathematical-statistical processing of “verbal relationships”, but attracting these same IGOs ​​to extract meaning from the message, as a kind of intention of the author of this message. So the computer should be taught to extract (recognize) these IGOs ​​in the text and memorize them, bringing them into their machine memory. And in order for the computer to learn this craft, in addition, you still need to bring everything to a formalized form. That is, to formalize the procedures for extracting meaning, to formalize the knowledge gained, having created, at the same time, not a database, as is being done now, but a full-fledged “Knowledge Base” (KB), so that there is not a highly primitive Data Mining, but already a highly efficient Knowledge Mining ". Finally, we must learn not to calculate meaning and knowledge, but simply to get them out of the BR in the same heuristic-associative way, just as all people do. But this computer linguistics, just, and can not.
It’s a pity, of course, that a lot of resources (intellectual, material, time) were spent on achieving such an understanding, but it’s also encouraging that there are already the first enthusiasts of researchers who follow this new unbeaten path, getting the first and very promising results.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/142733/
All Articles