Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

inverse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#81

Post by morgante »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #80
morgante wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link says access denied.

Guess it went down. This one lacks the outlined breakdown at the end, but try the pdf link here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.516.... EDIT: If you want a really deep dive, you can also check out "African American English: A Linguistic Introduction" from Cambridge University press: www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/languages-linguistics/sociolinguistics/african-american-english-linguist…

Thanks for the link. I found the regional breakdowns interesting.

That being said, I think this research emphasizes that AAVE is anything but standardized. That's not meant as a pejorative statement: it's just acknowledging that, like most languages in history, AAVE has not gone through a process of codification and standardization to formalize it.

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#82

Post by earljwagner »

fallous wrote: post #45

This, I suspect but do not know, may be a failing of the current direction of NL AI solutions. Selecting and using datasets to train NLP systems is a hard thing, especially if you truly treat it as a pattern to be learned rather than an enhancement of an underlying description of the particular language you're trying to learn. Are we headed towards a time when deeply trained networks seem to work in an acceptably lar…

Yes, there's growing awareness of this problem.

This blog post summarizes the paper "Machine Learning: The High-Interest Credit Card of Technical Debt": https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/02/29/machine-learning-the-hig...

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#83

Post by thaumasiotes »

morgante wrote: post #63
thaumasiotes wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_En...

I'm looking for formal rules. I'm not saying AAVE doesn't exist, I'm saying its rules (such as they are) are not formalized. Tons of rule books exist for Standard English and part of learning it is to memorize the correct rules. I don't believe any formal equivalent exists for AAVE.

"Formal rules", in the context you've chosen to speak in, are defined by this upstream comment:

> NLP is not very good with standard English yet and usually doesn't generalize from topic to topic. Dialects and other languages - especially those without formal rules - will come when we can deal with standard English.

The rules you're talking about, that get printed in books and studied, are not linguistic rules. Crucially, this means they are not widely observed in printed standard English, which in turn means they can't be relevant to training a language model to understand printed standard English.

The "formality" you seem to want to talk about has no place in this discussion. It is not relevant to any language. gordonguthrie is correct to point out that the assumption lqdc13 is trying to make is false. You are wrong to contradict him using a meaning of "formal rules" that you brought to the conversation yourself. It had a meaning -- a completely unrelated meaning -- before you showed up.

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#84

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #65
gugagore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English, or written language? Because I don't see why that would be the case.

>Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English Definitely. Things are clearer when you write formally and strictly adhere to grammatical rules. When I'm speaking casually I omit words and (ab)use punctuation much differently, and while that is perfectly acceptable to do, it is more complex and ambiguous to parse. As far as I'm aware the same pattern exists in a lot of languages and di…

[deleted]

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#85

Post by gugagore »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #65
gugagore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English, or written language? Because I don't see why that would be the case.

>Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English Definitely. Things are clearer when you write formally and strictly adhere to grammatical rules. When I'm speaking casually I omit words and (ab)use punctuation much differently, and while that is perfectly acceptable to do, it is more complex and ambiguous to parse. As far as I'm aware the same pattern exists in a lot of languages and di…

I don't think there is anything "formal" about Standard English. Can you give an example of what you're talking about? Which grammatical rules do you have in mind?

I don't know what you mean by formal black English (AAVE) vs. ... casual black English?

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#86

Post by gugagore »

morgante wrote: post #68
gugagore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English, or written language? Because I don't see why that would be the case.

> Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English, or written language? Absolutely. It follows a strict set of formal rules and you can readily find sources to learn those rules. Heck, copyeditors regularly debate the specific nuances of how to consistently write Standard English. Other dialects (and spoken language) are far less formalized. Where is the AP Stylebook or Strunk & White f…

Can you give an example where Strunk and White or a style guide vhelp to disambiguate some expression? I can't think of any.

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#87

Post by gugagore »

morgante wrote: post #68
gugagore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English, or written language? Because I don't see why that would be the case.

> Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English, or written language? Absolutely. It follows a strict set of formal rules and you can readily find sources to learn those rules. Heck, copyeditors regularly debate the specific nuances of how to consistently write Standard English. Other dialects (and spoken language) are far less formalized. Where is the AP Stylebook or Strunk & White f…

Can you give an example where Strunk and White or a style guide vhelp to disambiguate some expression? I can't think of any.

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#88

Post by gugagore »

wyager wrote: post #71
gugagore wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are only talking about supervised learning. And the bias people are probably talking about is bias in the data, not bias in the "input", as you put it. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06520 for a counterexample to your point.

In that paper it sounds like the algorithm is finding true relationships that the author doesn't like. What's the problem with the algorithm?

I don't understand what you mean by "the algorithm" or "true relationships".

Do you know what I mean? There's truth as in what the data says, and there's truth as in what's underlying before social processes " corrupt " the truth. This paper examines ways to get at the latent truth.

Do you think that's a useful endeavor? It's dismissive to say it has anything to do with what the "author likes".

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#89

Post by alphonsegaston »

morgante wrote: post #81
alphonsegaston wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess it went down. This one lacks the outlined breakdown at the end, but try the pdf link here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.516.... EDIT: If you want a really deep dive, you can also check out "African American English: A Linguistic Introduction" from Cambridge University press: www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/languages-linguistics/sociolinguistics/african-american-english-linguist…

Thanks for the link. I found the regional breakdowns interesting. That being said, I think this research emphasizes that AAVE is anything but standardized . That's not meant as a pejorative statement: it's just acknowledging that, like most languages in history, AAVE has not gone through a process of codification and standardization to formalize it.

Sure, but formal rules are not equivalent to a prescriptive grammar. AAVE has formal, consistent rules, described by linguists. You can make mistakes in AAVE just as in standard English (see: "African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes" https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/aave-is-not-se-with-mistake... )

like most languages in history, AAVE has not gone through a process of codification and standardization to formalize it

I'm not sure what you're getting at - prescriptive grammars of the codified form you're describing are the products of their political and economic circumstances. There isn't some Hegelian trajectory of linguistic validity, where all variants aspire towards legalism.

Re: A.I. Doesn't Get Black Twitter

#90

Post by Dylan16807 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #65
gugagore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English, or written language? Because I don't see why that would be the case.

>Do you think written Standard English is less ambiguous than any other English Definitely. Things are clearer when you write formally and strictly adhere to grammatical rules. When I'm speaking casually I omit words and (ab)use punctuation much differently, and while that is perfectly acceptable to do, it is more complex and ambiguous to parse. As far as I'm aware the same pattern exists in a lot of languages and di…

To your comment that was detected as a duplicate:

>I don't think there is anything "formal" about Standard English.

"Standard" English as she is spoke? No. But a3n was specifically talking about the formal version often called "Standard written English". It is very prescriptive and less flexible, which makes it easier to parse.

> Can you give an example of what you're talking about? Which grammatical rules do you have in mind?

Let's start with "every rule involving punctuation".

Post reply on HN