undefined | Better HN

0 pointsroot_axis3y ago0 comments

The content of intelligent speech is not driven by statistical relationships between the spoken lexemes, this is self-evident.

For example, let's say you're planning to approach your boss about receiving a raise, the contents of your speech will be driven by a personal theory of mind regarding how your boss perceives you, your own memory of who you are and how you like to be perceived, the cadence and tenor of speech you imagine your boss is receptive to, information contextually relevant to the purpose of the speech like your proven history of success within the organization, as well as a hundred other variables driven by physiological factors, culture, social habituation and more.

"Predict the next word" just doesn't describe intelligent speech in any meaningful way.

0 comments

tambourine_man3y ago

So, you thrown in theory of mind, physiological factors and culture without defining what that means or showing that they don't all derive from the same underlying statistical relationships in order to make your argument more robust? That's not how it works.

Defining intelligence is fundamental philosophical problem, a discussion that's thousands of years old in the making. To call something in this field self-evident is either ignorance or self denial.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tambourine_man3y ago

Defining intelligence is fundamental philosophical problem, a discussion that's thousands of years old in the making. To call something in this field self-evident is either ignorance or self denial.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse