4 ms·
Oh wow, Roger Schank [1]! Haven't heard that name in a while - he was quite famous in the early days of AI. I wonder if he has figured out a good way to marry M
by abhgh 8y ago
Oh wow, Roger Schank [1]! Haven't heard that name in a while - he was quite famous in the early days of AI. I wonder if he has figured out a good way to marry ML to his theory of Conceptual Dependency (CD) [2] - because that would could be ground-breaking for hard NLP problems.
Interestingly I started reading the article without paying much attention to who the author is. A few lines in I began to wonder if this is going to be unproductive rant, and if the author has heard of things like CD etc ... It became funny right about then because that's also when I happened to glance at the URL and saw Schanks name.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Schank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Schank
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_dependency_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_dependency_theory
- mark_l_watson 8y agoIn the 1980s I spent too much time trying to use Conceptual Dependency in a few small R&D projects. Looked promising, but I had little success with it.
- abhgh 8y agoI think one of the challenges with using CD in the real world is the "unclean" input that need to be mapped to the various primitives and structures of CD, or stuff in the same vein that came after. Without a way to do that automatically, in a scalable fashion and with minimal human assistance, its utility is limited. Which is why I feel that if we had a way to leverage the current breed of ML techniques to automatically (or even semi-automatically) define this mapping, it would be a big step forward.
- mark_l_watson 8y agoInteresting idea!