4 ms·

I'm not sure we read something as much as we develop a shared mental model and associated new language with another human. Most of the time these models are jus

I'm not sure we read something as much as we develop a shared mental model and associated new language with another human. Most of the time these models are just slightly different from before, so the change is so subtle as to be invisible. We have the appearance of a universal language called, say, "English". We don't actually have one. It's close enough. If you take a look around, printed words don't exist in most languages. Most languages are spoken. Printing is an extremely new thing we've only had for a very short amount of time. The only thing print can do is present a stilted, over-formal version of what listening to a monotone person give a speech in a dark room might be like. That's good enough for most cases, since the brain makes stuff up it needs. But I don't think it's language, at least not in the same way real spoken languages are language. Real languages are a messy and confusing affair, even more than printed words can be. The way it works is through the interaction over time, not over definitions. (Something something language games) I wish the guys luck. I'm not so sure we understand the problem yet. We may end up creating a machine that makes up answers to our questions after reading such that it sounds like a real person is doing the work. That's cool -- but it'd be a horrible disaster for humanity if something like that started being the primary interaction point with people. Over time it would make us a horribly stupid and unimaginative species. Like everything else in tech, we have good intentions and endless optimism. We're going to solve a problem whether we understand what it is or not, dang it. plus ça change... (And no, I don't think giving up the idea is any good. I'm just encouraging more understanding of the real goal versus the apparent goal)

falcor84 8y ago
On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand, I'd like to sprinkle a bit more of that endless optimism and assume that embodied cognition is the next logical step. Perhaps once these NLP agents are put into robotic bodies and begin interacting with our world more fully, they will "evolve" to attach "real meaning" to their language processing.
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  I love the optimism, I'd just like to see tech folks clearly delineate "This is what we're doing. This is what it might look like we're doing but we're not." The hype cycle in tech, combined with a tech-illiterate public isn't such a good thing, especially in a democracy. Too often the only way we figure things out is by getting screwed. That's a recurring behavior pattern that has to end. Somehow.
  - pX0r 8y ago
    > Too often the only way we figure things out is by getting screwed. That's a recurring behavior pattern that has to end. Somehow. That's just it - exploration vs exploitation trade-off. Don't believe this can be dusted off.
- kaolti 8y ago
  I think part of the issue might be that there is no "real meaning", we all make it up individually in our heads.
  - DanielBMarkham 8y ago
    Right. I've spent some time on this during my research for a book about how to manage product/project information, so much of which involves written language. We create meaning through human interaction. It's a very dynamic and fuzzy experience. We make it out to be a lot more concrete than it actually is. (Part of that is because of the rise of written language, which gives the illusion that if you can point at text on a page that somehow that text represents in an absolute fashion some concept. It does not.) Add programming to the mix, which is almost an entirely mathematical construct, and it's quite easy to get the wrong idea. This is the kind of thing programmers have blind spots about, and frankly it drives a lot of people crazy. So it's exactly the kind of domain where well-intentioned people can totally fuck things up for large portions of humanity. I'm not really crazy about seeing another social-media-level "oops!" in my lifetime.
    - bcbrown 8y ago
      This seems like a good place to plug one of my favorite pieces of writing on communication and how it can go wrong: http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

falcor84 8y ago

On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand, I'd like to sprinkle a bit more of that endless optimism and assume that embodied cognition is the next logical step. Perhaps once these NLP agents are put into robotic bodies and begin interacting with our world more fully, they will "evolve" to attach "real meaning" to their language processing.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago
I love the optimism, I'd just like to see tech folks clearly delineate "This is what we're doing. This is what it might look like we're doing but we're not." The hype cycle in tech, combined with a tech-illiterate public isn't such a good thing, especially in a democracy. Too often the only way we figure things out is by getting screwed. That's a recurring behavior pattern that has to end. Somehow.
- pX0r 8y ago
  > Too often the only way we figure things out is by getting screwed. That's a recurring behavior pattern that has to end. Somehow. That's just it - exploration vs exploitation trade-off. Don't believe this can be dusted off.
kaolti 8y ago
I think part of the issue might be that there is no "real meaning", we all make it up individually in our heads.
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  Right. I've spent some time on this during my research for a book about how to manage product/project information, so much of which involves written language. We create meaning through human interaction. It's a very dynamic and fuzzy experience. We make it out to be a lot more concrete than it actually is. (Part of that is because of the rise of written language, which gives the illusion that if you can point at text on a page that somehow that text represents in an absolute fashion some concept. It does not.) Add programming to the mix, which is almost an entirely mathematical construct, and it's quite easy to get the wrong idea. This is the kind of thing programmers have blind spots about, and frankly it drives a lot of people crazy. So it's exactly the kind of domain where well-intentioned people can totally fuck things up for large portions of humanity. I'm not really crazy about seeing another social-media-level "oops!" in my lifetime.
  - bcbrown 8y ago
    This seems like a good place to plug one of my favorite pieces of writing on communication and how it can go wrong: http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html