3 ms·

I watched a thing about how Koko the guerrilla didnt really understand sign language. They showed extended, unedited clips of koko fumbling and just brute forci

I watched a thing about how Koko the guerrilla didnt really understand sign language. They showed extended, unedited clips of koko fumbling and just brute forcing a whole series of signs until she got a treat. A lot of her "understanding", along with other apes undergoing the same treatment, were all heavy interpretations of the "researchers". She never actually learned a real version of sign language either. It was made up by "researchers" who never learned sign language either. Honestly, when you watch the videos, it feels like watching the unedited videos of those tv psychics who fumble at cold readings. Cherry picking editing does wonders as "scientific proof". Moral of the story, after reading this article, I agree with you. This isnt as groundbreaking or interesting as it seems. I'm pretty sure they're finding patterns that dont exist and are over rationalizing. Of course an animal would have the concept of none, a little, a bit more and a lot, especially when applied to the idea of scavenging for food. Appling the idea of mathematical concepts to them, with little support just feels like a cheap attempt for grant money. Which, surprise surprise, was the same sham pulled with Koko. That and some of these tests they talk about, either they're shit at describing them or even I would fail to prove I could count or do arithmetic.

musingsole 5y ago
> They showed extended, unedited clips of koko fumbling and just brute forcing a whole series of signs until she got a treat. ...what do you think human children are doing for the first ~4 years of their life? Also, different learning methods are used by the subject depending on their mood -- most importantly frustration -- and other context. Brute force learning tends to be the last stage before they're so frustrated they give up or become aggressive. It's also a common exploratory tactic. Teaching human sign language over a variant organically developed by the subject and team would have what advantage, exactly? It may be nominally more interesting to know a gorilla could adopt a purely human communication system -- very interesting. But it's also such a corner case of studying communication and particularly interspecies communication that to call it out as a problem is nothing more useful than a nitpick. We're coming from an age where all animals were by default assumed to be a sort of squishy -- sometimes tasty -- automaton. We have a long way to go in unlearning that particular arrogance. Assuming that intelligence can only be demonstrated in the purely human terms you seem to be looking for is just another vestige of that same arrogance.
- taeric 5y ago
  I think you are grossly underestimating how well kids can pick up sign language. Two year olds can easily pick up some basic sign use.
  - musingsole 5y ago
    Ok...2 instead of 4. I think you are grossly missing the point.
    - taeric 5y ago
      Apologies, I went fast on my post. My point was to tighten your numbers to strengthen your point. As it is, I feel lied to when folks say that it takes kids 4 or more years to get language.
      - caddemon 5y ago
        How does that strengthen his point? Koko stumbled around frequently, well after the learning period was advertised as done. Kids stumble around less than was claimed, as you mention.
        taeric 5y ago
        I didn't say it makes it a strong point. But deceitful numbers greatly weaken it. That is, with how off the idea that 4 year old can't take language is, I didn't make it to the argument. And I am sympathetic to the idea that animals can pick up on language.
        musingsole 5y ago
        The time window of learning ISN'T THE POINT. You're asking an animal to internalize a system of communication quite literally designed from the ground up for different hardware. It's like asking why does my Oculus headset take so long to communicate over ZigBee. What would be magical is that it did it at all. Lamenting how long it took to bend the Oculus hardware into some contorted SDR would be stupid.
wolverine876 5y ago
Why do you believe these sources, and your off-the-cuff analysis, and not the original research? Think of it from other readers perspectives: On one hand is the author of the article and the researchers, on the other is a commenter on HN. I'm not saying the parent comment is wrong, but we need some evidence.
- caddemon 5y ago
  Koko appeared much, much more in the media and pop sci publications than the actual scientific literature. There are also a number of researchers who questioned Koko in the literature, including people that tried to replicate with their own animals. There is really no way to make an argument from authority here, because Koko is a controversial topic among the "authorities". The OP is right that Koko stumbled around a lot, even after the signs had supposedly been "mastered". This article presents one of the more bizarre results of that: https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/koko-the-ape-obituaries-are-overlooking-her-nipple-fetish-and-other-important-things.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/koko-the-ape-obituaries... We probably are underrating animal intelligence, and whether Koko understood language is largely dependent on what one considers to qualify as "language" - there definitely were some impressive displays of intelligence at times. But through an unbiased lens I think it's also pretty clear the researchers were constantly making the most charitable possible interpretation of Koko's signs. As far as the GP comment, it is well documented that zero as a mathematical concept was developed surprisingly late, while the concept of "nothing" existed prior to any formal notion of integers at all. The Quanta article is conflating "nothing" with "zero", although perhaps the original research makes the distinction more clear.
samatman 5y ago
I would be a little kinder to the researchers than that: crows and other animals understanding the concept of none is interesting and plausibly true. My quibble is conflating this with zero, which is a much more powerful and advanced concept. Greeks, Romans, early medieval Europeans, none of them had the concept of zero, and they suffered for it. And what you've said about Koko the gorilla is true as far as I understand it. It was a media stunt, more Clever Hans than Mister Ed. It would be pretty cool if it wasn't, but I'd have to see some replication and I don't expect to.

musingsole 5y ago

> They showed extended, unedited clips of koko fumbling and just brute forcing a whole series of signs until she got a treat. ...what do you think human children are doing for the first ~4 years of their life? Also, different learning methods are used by the subject depending on their mood -- most importantly frustration -- and other context. Brute force learning tends to be the last stage before they're so frustrated they give up or become aggressive. It's also a common exploratory tactic. Teaching human sign language over a variant organically developed by the subject and team would have what advantage, exactly? It may be nominally more interesting to know a gorilla could adopt a purely human communication system -- very interesting. But it's also such a corner case of studying communication and particularly interspecies communication that to call it out as a problem is nothing more useful than a nitpick. We're coming from an age where all animals were by default assumed to be a sort of squishy -- sometimes tasty -- automaton. We have a long way to go in unlearning that particular arrogance. Assuming that intelligence can only be demonstrated in the purely human terms you seem to be looking for is just another vestige of that same arrogance.

taeric 5y ago
I think you are grossly underestimating how well kids can pick up sign language. Two year olds can easily pick up some basic sign use.
- musingsole 5y ago
  Ok...2 instead of 4. I think you are grossly missing the point.
  - taeric 5y ago
    Apologies, I went fast on my post. My point was to tighten your numbers to strengthen your point. As it is, I feel lied to when folks say that it takes kids 4 or more years to get language.
    - caddemon 5y ago
      How does that strengthen his point? Koko stumbled around frequently, well after the learning period was advertised as done. Kids stumble around less than was claimed, as you mention.
      - taeric 5y ago
        I didn't say it makes it a strong point. But deceitful numbers greatly weaken it. That is, with how off the idea that 4 year old can't take language is, I didn't make it to the argument. And I am sympathetic to the idea that animals can pick up on language.
      - musingsole 5y ago
        The time window of learning ISN'T THE POINT. You're asking an animal to internalize a system of communication quite literally designed from the ground up for different hardware. It's like asking why does my Oculus headset take so long to communicate over ZigBee. What would be magical is that it did it at all. Lamenting how long it took to bend the Oculus hardware into some contorted SDR would be stupid.

wolverine876 5y ago

Why do you believe these sources, and your off-the-cuff analysis, and not the original research? Think of it from other readers perspectives: On one hand is the author of the article and the researchers, on the other is a commenter on HN. I'm not saying the parent comment is wrong, but we need some evidence.

caddemon 5y ago
Koko appeared much, much more in the media and pop sci publications than the actual scientific literature. There are also a number of researchers who questioned Koko in the literature, including people that tried to replicate with their own animals. There is really no way to make an argument from authority here, because Koko is a controversial topic among the "authorities". The OP is right that Koko stumbled around a lot, even after the signs had supposedly been "mastered". This article presents one of the more bizarre results of that: https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/koko-the-ape-obituaries-are-overlooking-her-nipple-fetish-and-other-important-things.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/koko-the-ape-obituaries... We probably are underrating animal intelligence, and whether Koko understood language is largely dependent on what one considers to qualify as "language" - there definitely were some impressive displays of intelligence at times. But through an unbiased lens I think it's also pretty clear the researchers were constantly making the most charitable possible interpretation of Koko's signs. As far as the GP comment, it is well documented that zero as a mathematical concept was developed surprisingly late, while the concept of "nothing" existed prior to any formal notion of integers at all. The Quanta article is conflating "nothing" with "zero", although perhaps the original research makes the distinction more clear.

samatman 5y ago

I would be a little kinder to the researchers than that: crows and other animals understanding the concept of none is interesting and plausibly true. My quibble is conflating this with zero, which is a much more powerful and advanced concept. Greeks, Romans, early medieval Europeans, none of them had the concept of zero, and they suffered for it. And what you've said about Koko the gorilla is true as far as I understand it. It was a media stunt, more Clever Hans than Mister Ed. It would be pretty cool if it wasn't, but I'd have to see some replication and I don't expect to.