3 ms·
Maybe it's your expectation that anything interesting in linguistics needs the language of part of speech categories, relative clauses, morphology ... Maybe th
by mafribe 10y ago
Maybe it's your expectation that anything interesting in linguistics
needs the language of part of speech categories, relative clauses, morphology ... Maybe that assumption needs to be updated? Maybe the
language of network architectures, parameter update equations, learning rules ... is a better way of talking about language?
Given the successes that Google's machine translation has had, and the lack of success of traditional linguisitics, it might appear to be the case that this paper is directly about language.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoIt's not a better way of talking about language: it's a better way of talking about how to build a computationally useful model of language with features primarily extracted from data than building language explicitly in is. Pretty much by definition. Google's paper isn't talking about language -- it's talking about how to tune a generalized computational device to build a computationally useful model from a large corpus of data. Of course it sounds different than talking about language, per se.