141–150 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Limited headroom? Seems like they're assuming greater-than-human language ability is just impossible and will never be surpassed.
It's a reasonable assumption if only for the simple reason that humans said the sentences being tested, so how would you surpass that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a native English speaker and it is pretty obvious to me what both sentences mean.
That might help. I don't think a native speaker would ever say it this way.
I didn't know anything about SuperGLUE before (turns out it's a benchmark for language understanding tasks), so I clicked around their site where they show different examples of the tasks. One "word in context" task is to look at 2 different sentences that have a common word and decide if that word means the same thing in both sentences or different things (more details here: https://pilehvar.github.io/wic/ ) One of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my favorite examples that I heard in a David Rock talk which I can no longer find on youtube: "Time flies like an arrow": Time moves swiftly and in one direction. Record the speed of flies in the same way you would an arrow. Time flies, which are a kind of fly, are fond of an arrow. (e.g. Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana).
It sounds like you're talking about garden-path sentences [0], and in particular: "time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana" [1]. These are sentences whose structure tricks the reader into making an incorrect parse. My favourite of these has always been: "The horse raced past the barn fell". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_flies_like_an_arrow;_f…
Obvious in hindsight...
I didn't know anything about SuperGLUE before (turns out it's a benchmark for language understanding tasks), so I clicked around their site where they show different examples of the tasks. One "word in context" task is to look at 2 different sentences that have a common word and decide if that word means the same thing in both sentences or different things (more details here: https://pilehvar.github.io/wic/ ) One of…
The AIs in the benchmark are all trained exclusively on text, correct? My assumption has always been that to get human-level understanding, the AI systems need to be trained on things like visual data in addition to text. This is because there is a fair amount of information that is not encoded at all in text, or at least is not described in enough detail. I mean, humans can't learn to understand language properly wi…
I didn't know anything about SuperGLUE before (turns out it's a benchmark for language understanding tasks), so I clicked around their site where they show different examples of the tasks. One "word in context" task is to look at 2 different sentences that have a common word and decide if that word means the same thing in both sentences or different things (more details here: https://pilehvar.github.io/wic/ ) One of…
2. Reminds me a of a theory that Iran landed an American stealth drone by sending spoofed signals.
For me taking an airborne object and making it touch the ground is pretty much the same meaning whether it's from the inside or remotely or shooting it down.
One thing to always point out in these cases is that the human baseline isn't "how well people do at this task," like it's often hyped to be. It's "how well does a person quickly and repetitively doing this do, on average." The 'quickly and repetitively' part is important because we all make more boneheaded errors in this scenario. The 'on average' part is important because the errors the algo makes aren't just fewer…
I have no idea where the real human baseline is, or how to find it.
Also, consider this discussion. GLUE winners may be able to make informed parsing guesses about single text blocks, but they're years away from being able to make a useful contribution to a discussion like this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would a native English speaker use the word "landed" in this way? In the context of aircraft? "Landed" is badly ambiguous here and several distinct meanings are plausible. Captured is the most natural word given your interpretation. Honestly that sentence -- the use of landed and that awful plural -- approaches engrish. Is that deliberate or is the use of English here just badly flawed? I can't see any other possibil…
I wouldn't use it that way myself, but at the same time the intended meaning is clear as day to me from the context. I'm surprised by the reactions. "Enemy" should give it away immediately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second one means "the enemy successfully got several of our aircrafts". Specifically, definition 3a or 3b for the verb form here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/land So potentially the enemy captured the aircraft (3a) or destroyed them (3b).
Would a native English speaker use the word "landed" in this way? In the context of aircraft? "Landed" is badly ambiguous here and several distinct meanings are plausible. Captured is the most natural word given your interpretation. Honestly that sentence -- the use of landed and that awful plural -- approaches engrish. Is that deliberate or is the use of English here just badly flawed? I can't see any other possibil…