2 ms·

Hypothesis: Meena thinks they're both students enrolled in the same class.

• ufmace 7y ago
  Further conversation would quickly resolve that. Ask it what paper it's talking about. A human-quality response would be an instantly made-up excuse or explanation of what it thought the state was - like "Oh, I thought you were in my class". Or it could be a more typical computer model and display no sign that it even recognizes that the other party thinks there's a misunderstanding.
  • taneq 7y ago
    It seems to me like these massive-data approaches will eventually give responses that look like your first type, but are actually just statistically likely matches based on the dataset. The question is whether this approach will ever confer the ability to generate new responses, or is just building a big lookup table already encodes a potential response to any input.
    • red75prime 7y ago
      I prefer to think that we need relevant responses rather than new. And I'm not worried whether it's lookup table, given that lookup table that is required wouldn't fit our universe. Such models have to make generalizations to fit into mere 2.6 billion parameters as ten word sentence presents a possibility of one billion billion different inputs. Generalizations are limited, of course. Arithmetic doesn't seem to be generalized, for example, which isn't that surprising given that people need around 4 years to be taught to do it (as opposed to learning it by analyzing random texts), and then they usually need pen and paper in addition to their 100 billion neurons to do non-trivial calculations. I'm not saying that current network architectures are capable of all generalization humans can do. And we can't teach them like we do with children.