2017-12-08
- Q: Is a program more complex than everyday speech because the number of primitives is less than the number of words in everyday speech? Artificial intelligence evolves
- A programming language may have about 30 primitives, but any number of “functions” can be defined.
- It is widely practiced to group repeated processes into functions, give them function names, and refer to them by those names.
- A programming language may have about 30 primitives, but any number of “functions” can be defined.
- Human conversation appears simple compared to programs because mistakes are tolerated.
- Everywhere in the fields of mathematics, law, patents, etc., where it is not acceptable, more complex language is used than in everyday speech.
- In those fields, names are given to concepts that are used repeatedly and reused, just like function definitions in programs. (e.g., “semi-order,” “good will,” “shift correction,” etc.)
- The essential cause of the simplicity of human daily conversation is that humans are significantly inferior to computers in terms of “the ability to communicate without making mistakes.
- protocol is routinely communicated without standardization, which is out of the ordinary from a programmer’s point of view.
- The majority of human beings do not engage in remedial activities despite the fact that miscommunication caused by this actually occurs.
- There has been an improvement in communication among some professionals as described above.
- Most people do not clarify protocols, etc., because most people are not intelligent enough to handle clarified protocols without making mistakes.
- The majority of human beings do not engage in remedial activities despite the fact that miscommunication caused by this actually occurs.
- It has been suggested that a competent intelligence form may not need to create language
- We need to think about how a computer can extract useful information from a human intelligence, an intelligence with inferior intelligence, when it is weaving words using the symbols of language in a messy way.
- The model says that all human speech can be wrong, word choice can be wrong, and what is conveyed by the computer can be misunderstood.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/コンピュータと人間の会話に関する考察 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.