Natural language processing is (eventually) very much related to understanding what is being written and (re-)recognising words in the particular semantic contexts that apply. After playing around with the NLTK for a while, I come to realize that the toolkit is much geared towards analysis of specific texts, or helps in defining a EBNF representation of a particular grammar such that a particular category of text can be parsed more successfully or specific parsers / analyzers can be researched. There isn't any mention I've seen where a generic classifier (NP/VP/DET) exists that understands what words are for, more or less like an incremental learner that just goes along and finds out what goes where. Discovering the requirements for such a process is the real question. What makes up language? Why can language appear so fluid and in so many forms and how come we recognize language so very quickly after the utterance, even though that particular utterance has likely not been spoken before? Or is there indeed a difference in the speed of interpretation of familiar utterances versus non-familiar utterances? That is a very interesting research question. For now, I'm thinking up whether there are ways to discover the semantic information of words automatically, or possibly let the computer express to us that something could not be recognized or didn't make sense, so that we could tell the computer how things actually worked.
One thing that I find is going to take up a lot of time is to explain to computers how the world works. The advantage we have is the number of senses, which tells us a lot more of the combinations of observations, how these join together (specifying the situation in greater detail) and the possible consequences that could ensue (whether it's danger or normal, etc). Our language also contains words that allow us to express the particular information about observations of the senses into great detail.
What is needed for computers to start learning is to define a generic model for the world, such that objects (instances of types or classes) can interact with other objects (thereby classes), so that by observation of a particular instance, the computer must be able to generalize that instance towards a class or a class higher up the tree, continuing to find consistencies or inconsistencies in that existence. This yields a number of questions that require the computer / agent to research them for truth or false. The result could be that the class that was initially constructed isn't entirely valid, or the instance belongs to a totally different class that was not known until that time.
Most models I've seen revolve around recognizing a stream of information that refers to elements in the world and a pre-designed reasoning model that the computer uses to use those observations appropriately. But that requires up-front design and then rules out the learning of computers more or less automatically. What designers mean with "learning machines" sometimes is not learning new concepts, but most of the times it is related to learning to recognize particular situations such that the corresponding actions (which are finitely defined in most computer programs) may be chosen.
Well, I have no idea about what this model should look like, but there is no reason why it could not look like a generic model setup for multi-agent worlds. That particular situation has relations, which describe possible relations that one entity/instance could have with another and in what way. Then there are functions, which could be thought of as actions or manipulators of instances, functions that do stuff to entities. Of course, these functions shouldn't directly issue a particular action, but only manipulate the object "in the mind's eye". So there's a clear distinction between observation and the observations made about objects in the real world and this real situation vs. the representation of those objects in working memory. Only when conclusions made in working memory make sense should the computer start a 'world action' by invoking some kind of control function.
The picture above was inspired by the action of 'pointing'. Looking at animals in the kingdom there are no animals that actually point to things to teach something to others (well, disregarding the pointer dogs :). So pointing is very specific to the human learning experience and probably the one that has allowed us to learn in the first place. Pointing is about attracting a person's attention towards something that is happen, since it is considered important for learning or for other people to start taking some kind of action. So it's about teaching, but also about group behaviour and a simple way of communication. It is quite remarkable that no other animal has developed this particular trait, being such a simple one.
The expectation for many programs is that they are complete in the sense that basic functionality should work once things are bootstrapped or "learned". With that I mean that the capabilities of the program are pre-determined and programmed in, it only needs to find out when to execute those actions, which is generally determined by inspecting a pre-determined stream of information and then either learning after which sequence of patterns it needs to invoke which action and so on.
It is quite interesting how we neglect the fact that we could teach the program things as well by telling it. And even more importantly, how little research there has been so far about computer programs determining that their knowledge is insufficient to solve the case at hand and for methods to complete that knowledge such that it can be executed in the future. That to me, means that we're still thinking of the computer program as a complete specification with prior requirements that is executing a particular job.
New tool in town: KnowledgeGenes.com
7 years ago