This seems like a big deal...
"Computers figuring out what words mean"
It's probably more accurate to say that computers are being taught what words mean.
The first use of this technology will be to improve web searches. Since the computer understands the meaning behind words, it will be more successful finding what you really want than it is currently by just matching words.
"We have taught the computer virtually all the meanings of words and phrases in the English language," Cognition chief executive Scott Jarus told AFP."This is clearly a building block for Web 3.0, or what is known as the Semantic Web. It has taken 30 years; it is a labor of love," Jarus said.
The semantic map is reportedly the world's largest, and gives computers a vocabulary more than 10 times as extensive as that of a typical US college graduate.
The coming third generation of life online is predicted to feature intuitive artificial intelligence applications that work swiftly across broadband Internet connections.
When applied to Internet searches, semantic technology delivers results oriented to what people seem to be seeking instead of simply matching words used to online content.
For example, a semantic online search for "melancholy songs with birds" would know to link sadness in lyrics with various species of birds.
...
Cognition says it has also "semantically enabled" globally popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
Phil asked "AI or IA?" This seems to be evidence that we are close to AI.
Comments
If you think semantics is all about the statistical correlations between words, then yeah, we're close to AI.
Only semantics is a lot more than that. Our concept of "dog" doesn't rely merely on the correlation of that word with other words. We've got mountains of sensory experience associated with the concept. Without that link, I don't think I'd be alone in arguing that a semantic map such as this doesn't understand what a dog is...not even close. It knows a great deal about how the token "dog" interrelates to other tokens, but that is far, far, far from understanding or intelligence.
Posted by: Derek James | September 18, 2008 08:14 AM
I agree. The association of words with the actual fundamental concepts behind them requires visualization of them and their behavior, which in turn requires association with experience of the physical world.
Without that, it's hard to see how what we think of intelligence or conciousness could converge.
Posted by: Aaron | September 21, 2008 11:22 AM
Consider the deaf-blind:
http://www.actionfund.org/ohsay/saysee18.htm
People who learn to communicate using language who have no auditory or visual experience to base their understanding of words on probably deal at a much higher level of abstraction than the rest of us. If such an individual has never touched or smelled a dog, all he or she will know about a dog is what somebody else says. Such a person's understanding of the idea of "dog" will be very different from mine, but perhaps not that different from a computer's -- which also must rely on abstract information to grasp the concept of "dog." The major difference is that this individual's existing sensory experience will inform some aspect of their concept of what a dog is even if he or she has never touched or smelled a dog. The computer's "idea" will be entirely abstract, at least until we have computers that process their own sensory information.
In any case, our understanding of concepts has a lot to do with what we sense and a lot to do with how we reason abstractly. If you take most of the sensory input away, I think we would agree that we still have real use of and understanding of language. The question is how much meaning can exist if all sensory input is removed from the equation?
I think there can still be meaning and understanding even at a purely abstract level. It would be a different kind of thinking than we do, but that doesn't mean that it isn't thinking.
Posted by: Phil Bowermaster | September 22, 2008 12:44 PM