--- On Wed, 10/22/08, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You make the implicit assumption that a natural language > understanding system will pass the turing test. Can you prove this?
If you accept that a language model is a probability distribution over text, then I have already proved something stronger. A language model exactly duplicates the distribution of answers that a human would give. The output is indistinguishable by any test. In fact a judge would have some uncertainty about other people's language models. A judge could be expected to attribute some errors in the model to normal human variation. > Furthermore, it is just an assumption that the ability to > have and to apply > the rules are really necessary to pass the turing test. > > For these two reasons, you still haven't shown 3a and > 3b. I suppose you are right. Instead of encoding mathematical rules as a grammar, with enough training data you can just code all possible instances that are likely to be encountered. For example, instead of a grammar rule to encode the commutative law of addition, 5 + 3 = a + b = b + a = 3 + 5 a model with a much larger training data set could just encode instances with no generalization: 12 + 7 = 7 + 12 92 + 0.5 = 0.5 + 92 etc. I believe this is how Google gets away with brute force n-gram statistics instead of more sophisticated grammars. It's language model is probably 10^5 times larger than a human model (10^14 bits vs 10^9 bits). Shannon observed in 1949 that random strings generated by n-gram models of English (where n is the number of either letters or words) look like natural language up to length 2n. For a typical human sized model (1 GB text), n is about 3 words. To model strings longer than 6 words we would need more sophisticated grammar rules. Google can model 5-grams (see http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/08/all-our-n-gram-are-belong-to-you.html ), so it is able to generate and recognize (thus appear to understand) sentences up to about 10 words. > By the way: > The turing test must convince 30% of the people. > Today there is a system which can already convince 25% > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081013112148.htm It would be interesting to see a version of the Turing test where the human confederate, machine, and judge all have access to a computer with an internet connection. I wonder if this intelligence augmentation would make the test easier or harder to pass? > > -Matthias > > > > 3) you apply rules such as 5 * 7 = 35 -> 35 / 7 = 5 > but > > you have not shown that > > 3a) that a language understanding system > necessarily(!) has > > this rules > > 3b) that a language understanding system > necessarily(!) can > > apply such rules > > It must have the rules and apply them to pass the Turing > test. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
