5 ms·

But I don't want to be able to parse only highly restricted languages. I want to be able to parse anything, including natural language or even non-languages lik

But I don't want to be able to parse only highly restricted languages. I want to be able to parse anything, including natural language or even non-languages like raw audio. My brain can do it, why can't my computer?

reissbaker 3y ago
Your computer can do it, if it has a beefy enough Nvidia card. That's what LLMs are for! Grammar-based parsing for natural language isn't anywhere close to working, sadly, and may never be.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  You've never had an LLM misinterpret what you correctly wrote? (… I have.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwbadubadu 3y ago
Yes, never do humans misunderstand each other, or instructions are not clear to everyone and totally unambiguous, and luckily no language has pure differentiation of meaning by intonation, and, and.. and...
- thfuran 3y ago
  Yeah, natural languages don't have a specification or canonical parser implementation, so they cannot be reliably parsed.
  - Legend2440 3y ago
    They don't have a short parser. They can be parsed, it just requires a huge amount of priors and world knowledge. Rule-based parsers are too simple.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      No, they cannot be reliably parsed. There is no unambiguously correct parsing for many (or, arguably, any) strings. Two people could say the same thing in the same context and mean different things by it. You can't even definitively say whether what they said/wrote is valid English. Sure, there are strings most would agree are and strings most would agree aren't, but even taking consensus opinion as the source of truth, most isn't all, and there's no universally agreed upon threshold for acceptance.
      - lisper 3y ago
        My favorite example, due to Douglas Hofstadter: Politicians lie. Cast iron sinks. Politicians lie in cast iron sinks. It's not actually ambiguous, but I think it's a lovely illustration of the subtleties of the problem. An actually ambiguous example: I saw a politician lying in a cast iron sink.
        tmtvl 3y ago
        My personal favourite example is the proof that two positives can make a negative: 'yeah, right'.
        supernewton 3y ago
        Ambiguous parses aren't even the worst of it -- the worst are the ones that require real world knowledge. "I couldn't fit the trophy in my suitcase because it was too big." "I couldn't fit the trophy in my suitcase because it was too small."
        thfuran 3y ago
        Those seem like easier to resolve ambiguities than in the parent. One is almost certainly never going to be correct because it's nonsense, and that's a determination that requires a semantic understanding of the sentence, but no further context. The ambiguities in the parent are such that both parses are semantically reasonable. There are even contexts in which either could be intended. Suppose someone asks "What materials are heavier than water, and what are everyday things made of them that could float anyways?". If someone answers "cast iron sinks", it's unclear whether they're answering only the first, only the second, or even both, punningly.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

reissbaker 3y ago

Your computer can do it, if it has a beefy enough Nvidia card. That's what LLMs are for! Grammar-based parsing for natural language isn't anywhere close to working, sadly, and may never be.

deathanatos 3y ago
You've never had an LLM misinterpret what you correctly wrote? (… I have.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throwbadubadu 3y ago

Yes, never do humans misunderstand each other, or instructions are not clear to everyone and totally unambiguous, and luckily no language has pure differentiation of meaning by intonation, and, and.. and...

thfuran 3y ago
Yeah, natural languages don't have a specification or canonical parser implementation, so they cannot be reliably parsed.
- Legend2440 3y ago
  They don't have a short parser. They can be parsed, it just requires a huge amount of priors and world knowledge. Rule-based parsers are too simple.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    No, they cannot be reliably parsed. There is no unambiguously correct parsing for many (or, arguably, any) strings. Two people could say the same thing in the same context and mean different things by it. You can't even definitively say whether what they said/wrote is valid English. Sure, there are strings most would agree are and strings most would agree aren't, but even taking consensus opinion as the source of truth, most isn't all, and there's no universally agreed upon threshold for acceptance.
    - lisper 3y ago
      My favorite example, due to Douglas Hofstadter: Politicians lie. Cast iron sinks. Politicians lie in cast iron sinks. It's not actually ambiguous, but I think it's a lovely illustration of the subtleties of the problem. An actually ambiguous example: I saw a politician lying in a cast iron sink.
      - tmtvl 3y ago
        My personal favourite example is the proof that two positives can make a negative: 'yeah, right'.
      - supernewton 3y ago
        Ambiguous parses aren't even the worst of it -- the worst are the ones that require real world knowledge. "I couldn't fit the trophy in my suitcase because it was too big." "I couldn't fit the trophy in my suitcase because it was too small."
        thfuran 3y ago
        Those seem like easier to resolve ambiguities than in the parent. One is almost certainly never going to be correct because it's nonsense, and that's a determination that requires a semantic understanding of the sentence, but no further context. The ambiguities in the parent are such that both parses are semantically reasonable. There are even contexts in which either could be intended. Suppose someone asks "What materials are heavier than water, and what are everyday things made of them that could float anyways?". If someone answers "cast iron sinks", it's unclear whether they're answering only the first, only the second, or even both, punningly.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]