4 ms·
If you mean that just like the experiencer in the cave, seeing shadows instead of things (really, things instead of Ideas), the machine sees words instead of th
by mdp2021 2y ago
If you mean that just like the experiencer in the cave, seeing shadows instead of things (really, things instead of Ideas), the machine sees words instead of things, that would be in a way very right.
But we could argue it could not be impossible to create an ontology (a very descriptive ontology - "this is said to be that, and that, and that...") from language alone. Hence the question whether the ontology is there. (Actually, the question at this stage remains: "How do they work - in sufficient detail? Why the appearance of some understanding?")
- marcosdumay 2y agoYeah, what I'm saying is that something very similar to an ontology is there. (It's incomplete but extensive, not coherent, and it's deeper in details than anything anybody ever created.) It's just that it's a kind of a useless ontology, because the reality it's describing is language. Well, only "kind of useless" because it should be very useful to parse, synthesize and transform language. But it doesn't have the kind of "knowledge" that most people expect an intelligence to have. Also, its world isn't only composed of words. All of them got a very strong "Am I fooling somebody?" signal during training.