3 ms·

> Take the sentence "Harry picked up the glass." "If you can’t imagine picking up a glass or seeing someone picking up a glass," Lakoff wrote in a paper with Vi

by dghf 12y ago

> Take the sentence "Harry picked up the glass." "If you can’t imagine picking up a glass or seeing someone picking up a glass," Lakoff wrote in a paper with Vittorio Gallese, a professor of human physiology at the University of Parma, in Italy, "then you can’t understand that sentence." Taken to its logical conclusion, doesn't that imply that someone blind from birth can't understand visual metaphors or idioms: e.g., "I see what you mean?"

tomp 12y ago
No. To "pick up the glass" means something in this world, and you can imagine yourself doing it, which is why you "understand" it. "I see what you mean" means nothing different than "I get it", which even a blind person can understand. A better example would be, you can't really understand "to have sex" before you actually experience it (and even then, only for your own sex).
- marktangotango 12y ago
  This little interchange highlights something I find interesting: we don't really 'get it' so why should machines? Ie all an AI has to do is fake it. How much miscommunication and lack of understanding is there in human interaction? A lot I think. So all an AI has to do is get close enough. Talking to such an AI would be like talking to a dull witted friend who's really good at arithmetic.
  - tomp 12y ago
    Au contraire, I think that to make good AI, an AI really has to "get it" - i.e. it has to have an accurate, funcional internal representation of the world (i.e. "imagination"). Otherwise, the number of concepts that it would need to memorize to be able to "fake it" would be just too huge; for example, to know that "he went through the door" means that "he's not in the room any more", and any number of such similar, trivial facts. AFAIK, that's one of the main problems in AI right now. Computer vision is getting really good, but at this point, it's completely useless - sure, the computer is able to recognize a bottle on a table, but doesn't have an internal representation of the 3D world that would tell him that glass bottle can be lifted off the table (i.e. that it's not one object), and that it should be handled carefully (as it can break, as opposed to e.g. a ball).
    - dghf 12y ago
      > Computer vision is getting really good, but at this point, it's completely useless Driverless car? (OK, that's lidar rather than vision per se, but still surely depends on constructing a model of the world based on external sensory input.)
      - tomp 12y ago
        Yes, but that's a really simple model; it's to true 3D vision what Wolfenstein 3D was to 3D graphics. The only thing driverless cars need to do is (1) recognize obstacles, and (2) recognize some predetermined objects (traffic lights, ...) and then use predetermined behavior.
    - dghf 12y ago
      > for example, to know that "he went through the door" means that "he's not in the room any more" > sure, the computer is able to recognize a bottle on a table, but doesn't have an internal representation of the 3D world that would tell him that glass bottle ... should be handled carefully (as it can break, as opposed to e.g. a ball) To be fair, these are also true of human beings in the early stages of their development (object persistence; the cry of "oh dear" that every parent of a toddler comes to dread).

by dghf 12y ago

tomp 12y ago

No. To "pick up the glass" means something in this world, and you can imagine yourself doing it, which is why you "understand" it. "I see what you mean" means nothing different than "I get it", which even a blind person can understand. A better example would be, you can't really understand "to have sex" before you actually experience it (and even then, only for your own sex).

marktangotango 12y ago
This little interchange highlights something I find interesting: we don't really 'get it' so why should machines? Ie all an AI has to do is fake it. How much miscommunication and lack of understanding is there in human interaction? A lot I think. So all an AI has to do is get close enough. Talking to such an AI would be like talking to a dull witted friend who's really good at arithmetic.
- tomp 12y ago
  Au contraire, I think that to make good AI, an AI really has to "get it" - i.e. it has to have an accurate, funcional internal representation of the world (i.e. "imagination"). Otherwise, the number of concepts that it would need to memorize to be able to "fake it" would be just too huge; for example, to know that "he went through the door" means that "he's not in the room any more", and any number of such similar, trivial facts. AFAIK, that's one of the main problems in AI right now. Computer vision is getting really good, but at this point, it's completely useless - sure, the computer is able to recognize a bottle on a table, but doesn't have an internal representation of the 3D world that would tell him that glass bottle can be lifted off the table (i.e. that it's not one object), and that it should be handled carefully (as it can break, as opposed to e.g. a ball).
  - dghf 12y ago
    > Computer vision is getting really good, but at this point, it's completely useless Driverless car? (OK, that's lidar rather than vision per se, but still surely depends on constructing a model of the world based on external sensory input.)
    - tomp 12y ago
      Yes, but that's a really simple model; it's to true 3D vision what Wolfenstein 3D was to 3D graphics. The only thing driverless cars need to do is (1) recognize obstacles, and (2) recognize some predetermined objects (traffic lights, ...) and then use predetermined behavior.
  - dghf 12y ago
    > for example, to know that "he went through the door" means that "he's not in the room any more" > sure, the computer is able to recognize a bottle on a table, but doesn't have an internal representation of the 3D world that would tell him that glass bottle ... should be handled carefully (as it can break, as opposed to e.g. a ball) To be fair, these are also true of human beings in the early stages of their development (object persistence; the cry of "oh dear" that every parent of a toddler comes to dread).