from a system that patterns itself after a human intelligence because it feeds from a massive library of human intelligence
You’re a bit naive if you think this is the latest tech they’ve got. This is a 20+ year old method.
I'm not going to argue with you on that because you can't prove it and I cannot disprove it. But I can say that for each time this "reason" is given for why something is or isn't a specific way, nothing more ever comes of it and the can gets kicked down the road where the statement is used once again in a future discussion. Rinse and repeat.
NPC move.
If Tesla etc hires me I can think of ways to go past that approach. And I’ve thought about how to go past that approach years ago. So real pros of the pros have already surpassed it for sure.
For instance look at this figure on how the semantics of a sentence can be broken down -
https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/20200329230855/Syntax1.png
Beyond simple sentences like ‘the cat is red’ the possibilities for these break downs become very numerous very fast. Ambiguity happens extremely quick. Historically this is a path finding type solved problem not a machine learning one.
Couple this with the standard 2-word or 3-word approach you’re alluding to and you can start making sure the bot is making grammatically correct sentences. Start doing AI on this syntax level as well, you might start getting some genius level sentence creation.
Couple this with a syntax tree break down of sentence to sentence break down of topic progression and it might start getting really hard to tell it’s a bot anymore.
Take this even further... you can start using “live learning” where the bot actually starts holding its own “opinions” and stances on topics etc. Like how they do with LSTM machine learning networks.
(post is archived)