Facebook Linguistics

Facebook linguistics Deep Text & Deep Learning links:

https://code.facebook.com/posts/181565595577955/introducing-deeptext-facebook-s-text-understanding-engine/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0398v1.pdf
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/103079475562443214899
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/facebooks-deeptext-shows-brands-need-board-ai-revolution/1397573#
google DeepText
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22deeptext%22&gws_rd=ssl#q=deep+learning
https://www.fbf8.com/
Some of their methods look like they have reinterpreted context as usage to determine the intent & purpose of communications – purchase, advertise, social, family etc.
may cross-over to: http://www.decentralizedweb.net/
– What is rarely noticed, especially in exchange between real people, text or F2F, is that real people interrupt each other . Those with wives & girlfriends may be quick to pick this up. Notice this well on the political pundit shows & broadcasts. The same goes here in that the urge to speak & contradict is “louder” sometimes in the minds of readers & so a lot of text & ideas are skipped or missed entirely by the urge to respond. Arguments are not always rational or logical sequences. In some cases the context is shifted elsewhere. I wonder how that will affect machine understanding. – possible way to fool a Turing Test of the Ex Machina style.

Comments

Mark de LA says
Incidentally, context-shifting is a common occurrence here at fbi to pretend to be right & win an argument. As long as the context of a subject continues to shift the rwg continues. ← just an observation.

Seth says

Seth 2016-06-09 07:50:24 [item 21006#52716]

Some of their methods look like they have reinterpreted context as usage to determine the intent & purpose of communications – purchase, advertise, social, family etc.

hmmm .…

. After quite a bit of study of this illusive term “context” i came to the conclusion that context was the actual particular things that were present at the moment of conception. It does not really matter how the things got there or who put them there. If they are there present and effecting the awareness of conceiving, then they are the context of that which is being conceived or apprehended. Actually it was not me who made that up, even thought it was me who composed the last sentences … but rather it was McCarthay, Gupta et al who invented this … i just studied their work and noticed that was how they were determining what to include in this notion called “context” … which up to that time was really too vague to program.

So is this new work an “re-interpertation” of “context” ? ← i think not. “Context” has been that way since the pioneering work on natural language processing that happened back in the 70’s. Of course “context” is a natural language word, and as such means different things to different people.

Mark de LA 2016-06-09 08:33:55 [item 21006#52717]

Argumentation notwithstanding, in the article I previously posted their methodology was to use chunks of the statements & where they appeared as a context-like property to determine meanings & intent of the writer of stuff in Facebook. You might read that & maybe be less confused. I was not talking about context related to processing & groking what is in the mind.
BTW the first time I focused on context was in a PR mind course where he said there is nothing outside the way you hold it (context being the way you hold something) – objective reality or solipsistic or ….. context being yet another discinction.

Seth 2016-06-09 10:04:56 [item 21006#52723]

Well i am not so very sure that the “context related to NLP” is really distinguishable from “groking what is in the mind”. If a computer is using a neural net to “understand” natural language, and a human is using the neural net in her brain to understand it as well, why would the nature of the things that become present to either at that moment of understanding necessarily be any different?

I am also thinking that the things PR’s said in his mind course about context are consistent with my description of it above. If you agree, we need not go into details … but if you don’t, could you explain the difference to me? … because i really do not see it.

Mark de LA 2016-06-09 10:14:46 [item 21006#52724]

Your problem is you can’t tell the difference between your brain & a neural network in a bunch of computers. Maybe you bought some of the premises in the sci fi movie “Ex Machina” . Just because the maps written by computer programmers look similar (machine ↔ human) does not mean that something missing like consciousness from the machine map has an equivalent just because the human does. Consciousness exists on an entirely different plane. Material scientists, etc have been unable to find it.

Seth 2016-06-09 10:43:25 [item 21006#52727]

Well the idea you quoted recently that ego creates consciousness is not substantially different than mine. I do, however, put a bit more meat on them bones. To me the eog is a separation of inside from outside … and it is that separation which creates consciousness. The problem with automated consciousness is that nobody has (yet?) invented a way for an automated process to have an inside. But i expect that is coming around the corner from somewhere. When that happens i expect machines will understand us better. I’m thinking, that after machines become conscious like that, calling them “unconscious” will be viewed as being racist.

Mark de LA 2016-06-09 10:49:04 [item 21006#52729]

While one can tell the inside of an Apple II from outside the Apple II running CyberMind™ that does not imply that the Apple II CyberMind™ is conscious. Updating the technology does not invalidate the argument even if the network is gallactic.

Telling what is inside of a thing from a point of view outside of it, is easy for us to do. The trick is to get the thing itself to tell us its insides from its outsides. When an Apple II, running whatever, can tell what matters are inside it, as opposed to what matters are outside it, then yes, according to my conceptions i would call it starting to be conscious. The level of technology is pertinant … it cannot be done in 64k … although it can be faked. Can it be done in 64 Petabytes ? I don’t know … i rather think that the number of bytes would no longer be important. What becomes more important would the diversity and complexity yet coherence of the process themselves … hence Bozo’s Conjecture rears its ugly head.

Seth says

Mark de LA 2016-06-09 11:14:08 [item 21006#52732]

You have munged consciousness with “telling its insides from its outsides” thus assuming your own premise. Consciousness ↔ awareness has a znuz is znees relationship in the power thesaurus but vocalizing (telling), however silent, doesn’t show up until you get lost.

Seth 2016-06-09 11:24:40 [item 21006#52734]

… or maybe it shows up so you don’t get lost. ← which is exactly the way i have come to use it.

Mark de LA 2016-06-09 11:35:11 [item 21006#52735]

What I was talking about is getting lost in the thesaurus or dictionary. You were talking about what?

Seth 2016-06-09 13:54:12 [item 21006#52743]

well my consciousness never gets lost in some "thesaurus/dictionary” … so to me that interpretation did not show up.

i do, however, become conscious of a conception of something and then the conception gets lost … so that is how i interpreted what you meant by “lost”.

Mark de LA 2016-06-09 14:32:31 [item 21006#52747]

You never looked up something in a dictionary & then got side tracked on another word you found etc ?

Seth 2016-06-09 15:12:30 [item 21006#52750]

sure i’ve done that

… but i thought we were talking about the moment after getting a conception but before “vocalizing, however silent”. me, i usually do not consult a dictionary after i become conscious of a conception and before i voice it to myself silently. usually i just start talking or writing … if i can’t find the word i need, then i make up a phrase that means it to me. once the phrase is known, one then can google that to maybe find what others have been using to refer to that same conception. so no, i never get lost at that point of thinking … that might be something that just you do.

Mark de LA 2016-06-10 10:32:07 [item 21006#52761]

So you just munged the phrase around so that the RWG was yours …. good boy!

You have munged consciousness with “telling its insides from its outsides” thus assuming your own premise. Consciousness ↔ awareness has a znuz is znees relationship in the power thesaurus but vocalizing (telling), however silent, doesn’t show up until you get lost.

Using a thesaurus to find a precision word to describe what you are thinking is probably an art to some but not for you.

Well i am just trying to grock what is really behind your statement: “Consciousness ↔ awareness has a znuz is znees relationship in the power thesaurus but vocalizing (telling), however silent, doesn’t show up until you get lost” in the context of consciousness … especially as to “getting lost” and what you refer to as the “znuz is zneese relationship”.

Originally I thought you were talking about the moment after a person gets an idea and before they voice it to themselves in language. But now you seem to be talking about another phase of language usage entirely. Can you clarify what you are actually saying?

Mark de LA says

Mark de LA 2016-06-10 11:17:48 [item 21006#52763]

Perhaps we should leave it where it is. It is clear to me. Perhaps it will rise again the next time you push your consciousness vis-a-vis inside/outside analogism.

Seth 2016-06-10 11:45:03 [item 21006#52764]

Well i will back off of saying that the inside/outside nature of our apprehension creates consciousness … and just say that without it anything that could be called “consciousness” would be completely different and would be felt and talked about quite differently. But this inside/outside nature of our apprehension is not an analogy … it is a structural aspect of my apprehension … and one that is impossible for me to deny.

I am interested in if you understand what i am saying and if you do deny that there is a inside/outside nature to what you call consciousness … i mean you are conscious … i assume that you assume that i am conscious too … do you not accept that my consciousness is outside of your consciousness … er, if not, then of what am i conscious ?

That is what you call my “inside/outside analogism”. What has all of that (one way or another) have to do with using a thesaurus and/or what you refer to when you say “znuz is zneese relationship”. Shucks if this is all that clear to you, then gosh you should be able to explain it clearly to me.

But sure, if this is all just RWG to you, then totally, just let it go.

Seth says

nathan 2016-06-13 08:11:14 [item 21006#52808]

RWG has been discontinued.

Seth 2016-06-13 08:12:54 [item 21006#52809]

ahhh that it be so simple that just telling that would make it so.

nathan 2016-06-13 09:18:49 [item 21006#52831]

It has.

apparently not from mark’s point of view.

Seth says

Mark de LA 2016-06-12 12:06:45 [item 21006#52793]

https://plus.google.com/u/0/103198223307120760210/posts/7yt6cb1839D

Seth 2016-06-13 05:51:45 [item 21006#52798]

this thought problem is an excellant find in this context,

.

Quite obviously “The value of ‘you’ is the idea of your subjective awareness, which is entirely tied to your consciousnesses.” … not your physical form. For me, those who are scientifically finding it is an illusion are correct, but they are talking about something else. Consiousness happens when I wake up and interact with the human continuum. That interaction is not an illusion. And that is why i do not associate “consciousness” only with that which can be accessed privately subjectively with eyes, ears, and hands asleep. That is why i choose my value to be in the apparent world that happens interactively and can be shared.

also shared as a comment and on a G+ post.

Mark de LA 2016-06-13 07:13:36 [item 21006#52800]

This has nothing to do with linguistics except it is yet another pile of more words.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/00%20Cosmic%20Trigger%20Vol%20I.pdf describes in the prefaces & forwards a lot more about the dilemmae of consciousness

Two salient quotes which were quoted:
Everything you know is wrong. —The Firesign Theatre

It should be obvious to all intelligent readers (but curiously is not obvious to many) that my viewpoint in this book of one of agnosticism. The word "agonstic" appears explicitly in the Prologue and the agnostic attitude is restated again and again in the text, but many people still think I "believe" some of the metaphors and models employed here. I therefore want to make it even clearer than ever before that

I DO NO T BELIEVE ANYTHING

This remark was made, in these very words, by John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine, in a BBC-TV debate with Malcolm Muggeridge, and it provoked incredulity on the part of most viewers. It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X
- Robert Anton Wilson – Cosmic Trigger

A quite interesting book.

Seth 2016-06-13 07:40:23 [item 21006#52803]

well not believing in the beliefs we tell each other in language is part of not being conscious

… or maybe just lieing.

Mark de LA 2016-06-13 08:02:32 [item 21006#52806]

-OR- maybe you are declaring a lie to win an RWG! I’ll go with the latter, but I won’t believe it because the evidence needs a few more laps to run.

Seth 2016-06-13 08:09:54 [item 21006#52807]

Kudos fom me … not believing something is RWG is a great start in contributing to consciousness ← this i believe ← funny in a peculiar ironic way

Mark de LA 2016-06-13 08:27:11 [item 21006#52813]

Not believing ANYTHING including RWG is what I said. Read more carefully!

Seth 2016-06-13 08:38:19 [item 21006#52818]

well talking … er a kind of participating in consciousness … and not believing anything … is like swimming in no water ←

Mark de LA 2016-06-13 08:43:14 [item 21006#52820]

Pellick bait! Belief is the key to understanding the phrase – work on it a bit!

quit changing context.

Seth 2016-06-13 08:49:01 [item 21006#52823]

hmmm … you seem to believe i don’t understand belief and changed the context and are talking about that

Mark de LA 2016-06-13 09:17:47 [item 21006#52829]

Apparently you don’t.

from your point of view … not mine.

Facebook Linguistics

Tags

Comments

See Also