I guess a question would be: how do you know your experiences are similar enough to allow understanding? — frank
These are different meanings. In A the councillors advocate violence and B they fear violence (which has two meanings in and of itself). — I like sushi
Not a very clear question Frank. But in 20 years of full time work as a translator I've translated around 10 million words, I very rarely receive complaints about my translations, my work is checked by an editor and I very rarely receive corrections from them, and my customers keep coming back to me and paying for my services. Does that answer your question? — Daemon
How would you prove that this extra thing beyond rule following, this 'understanding' exists? — frank
In A. "they" refers to the protestors, in B. it refers to the councillors. We know this because of our experience of the world. It's an example of something a computer couldn't know. — Daemon
have a structural problem. Bottom line is the reader has to read the meaning in instead of getting it from what he's reading. I.e., eisegesis v. exegesis. And people often get it right, but that's in-itself not right. In a perfect world an editor marks them for rewrite.A. The councilors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they advocated violence.
B. The councilors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they feared violence. — Daemon
In A. "they" refers to the protestors, in B. it refers to the councillors. We know this because of our experience of the world. It's an example of something a computer couldn't know. — Daemon
I have been a professional translator (freelance) for the same amount of years!I have been a professional translator for 20 years. My job is all about understanding. — Daemon
Yes, CAT tools are very good, but mainly for technical subjects. I used them extensively in translation manuals (75% of my total workload!) But on general text, I use Google translation, which I call "pre-translation". Although in the past Google translations were quite inferior --in Greek, which is my native language, it was actually deplorable, because of the complexity of the Greek grammar-- but these days they are really excellent, even in Greek! Most probably because of their hugely increased database of both words/terms, phrases and evem full sentences. So, after that, your task is only to correct minor mistakes and trim the text in general. It's there that your proficiency in your native language comes in as the most important element. Undestanding becomes of secondary importance. It's a fact.The CAT tool suggests translations based on what I have already translated. — Daemon
Now, I don't know how you have reduced such an interesting topic as "The important question of what understanding is" into a translation subject! — Alkis Piskas
That raises the important question of what understanding is and, more importantly, whether it is something beyond the ability of a computer AI? — TheMadFool
What exactly are we discussing and for what purpose? I do fail to see the profoundness or any possible fruit of this topic. Computers, AI =/= human comprehension. I doubt there was any disagreement at any point. — Outlander
That raises the important question of what understanding is and, more importantly, whether it is something beyond the ability of a computer AI? — TheMadFool — Daemon
Well, for example, there are sometimes mistakes in the source text. Maybe somebody writes "the saw blade must be touched with the fingers while it is still rotating". So I write to the customer and say "I think you missed out the word 'not' here". And they say "yes, thank you, you're right".
Does that answer your question? — Daemon
I can sketch it out.Can you tell me how I could get all that stuff about the store shelf and banana bread into my translation memory? — Daemon
...the ability to see. Add to that some basic sapience. The general idea is that this should have the ability to interact with reality in real time on scales roughly approximating that of your typical language using naked apes. Some of this interaction would involve exploiting "seeing" (or other kinds of sensations) in the attainment of goal oriented behaviors analogous to how we "intentionally do things"; i.e., at roughly the same levels of abstractions as the "things we do" or, more to the point, at roughly the same levels of abstractions as the "things we talk about".A camera does not see. — Daemon
A. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they advocated violence.
B. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they feared violence.
A computer can't understand that "they" applies to the protestors in A. but the councillors in B, because it's not immersed in our complex world of experience. — Daemon
The examples I gave were intended to illustrate that semantics isn't simply mapping! — Daemon
To most people. Why do you keep refusing to accept this? In a place where the councillors are corrupt/vicious why not the opposite. — I like sushi
Can you tell me how I could get all that stuff about the store shelf and banana bread into my translation memory? — Daemon
I can sketch it out.
You need some bootstrap capabilities outside of dictionaries... things like humans have; e.g.:
A camera does not see. — Daemon
...the ability to see. — InPitzotl
I read this of course. But it's still about undestanding ... and my wondering is still unanswered! :grin:ecause I was responding to something TheMadFool said, which I quoted at the very start of this thread: — Daemon
Well, in that case, even if you had used a more specific title, like "Computers and understanding" or something like that, it would be still inappropriate because computers do not possess any understaning!discussing computer translation is an excellent way to address the question of understanding. — Daemon
A. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they advocated violence.
B. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they feared violence.
A computer can't understand that "they" applies to the protestors in A. but the councillors in B, because it's not immersed in our complex world of experience. — Daemon
I like this very much. — Srap Tasmaner
Whether one could somehow, someday develop an artificial system that could deal with such a case, who knows.
You were the one who asked me the question. You were also the one opening this thread with your OP, where you wrote this:I mean, come back to us when there's a camera that can see — Daemon
...and you were the one talking about CAT tools as if that had anything to do with referents.matching linguistic symbols (words, spoken or written) to their respective referents — TheMadFool
The examples I gave were intended to illustrate that semantics isn't simply mapping! — Daemon
Of course it isn't. I'm surprised anyone would think it is. — Srap Tasmaner
You were the one who asked me the question. — InPitzotl
You were also the one opening this thread with your OP, where you wrote this:
matching linguistic symbols (words, spoken or written) to their respective referents — TheMadFool
Ultimately that's correct, but the gaps are really in details.I was kinda hoping you'd realise you couldn't answer the question. In other words, you'd realise that you can't get a computer to understand things in the way we can. — Daemon
Sorry, I misspoke here... what I meant was that in the OP that was what you quoted. TMF did indeed write that, but he didn't explain what a referent was too well; the way he explained it, a referent could be interpreted as a phrase... so the proposal could be understood that your CAT tool might understand what "water" is if it mapped "water" to the phrase: "cool flowing substance that animals and plants need".TheMadFool wrote that, I was quoting him. I'm arguing against him. — Daemon
Humans that know what "water" means map that word to that stuff... — InPitzotl
and to do that, we form a concept — InPitzotl
The idea of such things — InPitzotl
a model of the stuff — InPitzotl
The point is that we are able to make a judgement about the meaning of the sentences which a computer can't possibly make. — Daemon
Oooooh! What a great question! I think this naturally falls out of our agency. We use our senses to sense the world; as we do so, we create world models. We refer to these world models, in real time even, to "do things". But we also as part of this model "project" it as something independent from us and, well, it winds up that's a good theory of what the world is. I think something along these lines (at least for claims about the state of the external world) is what gives rise to intentionality.Are concepts and ideas and models any more harmlessly, less misleadingly identified as the referent of "water" than are phrases like "cool flowing substance"? — bongo fury
You don't know for sure that you and your client have the same understanding.
In exactly the same way, you don't know that the world is out there as it appears to be.
You get by just fine not knowing these things. Or we could say you know one just as well as you know the other. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.