tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post1218586895130972911..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: Yang (himself) on BayesNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-42153209969852377222016-04-21T00:18:48.890-07:002016-04-21T00:18:48.890-07:00I really like Iris van Rooij's paper "The...I really like Iris van Rooij's paper "The Tractable Cognition thesis" which makes the arguments very well.<br />(<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Iris_Rooij/publication/51139697_The_tractable_cognition_thesis/links/0fcfd50a55dec0e1f6000000.pdf" rel="nofollow">link</a>)Alex Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04634767958690153584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-72677194007226386312016-04-20T08:16:18.652-07:002016-04-20T08:16:18.652-07:00Thanks Chris. Highly relevant indeed. My friends i...Thanks Chris. Highly relevant indeed. My friends in the quantum computing business tell me that there are intractable problems even on a quantum computer--and that's about as real as it'll get!Charles Yanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06041398285400095406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-58090243790414860432016-04-19T19:03:33.299-07:002016-04-19T19:03:33.299-07:00Just discovered this series of posts, which have b...Just discovered this series of posts, which have been very interesting. Charles, your paper reminded me of some <a href="http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf" rel="nofollow">ideas that Scott Aaronson has been pushing</a> regarding the perils of ignoring complexity when thinking about computation (of particular relevance is the section on induction). Although Scott's primary tool is asymptotic complexity analysis (which can easily be criticized on the timescales learning occurs on), he makes a strong case that even for normative models of the real-world phenomena, complexity matters.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02873949286995651782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-9972730264305134252016-04-15T09:07:37.085-07:002016-04-15T09:07:37.085-07:00I hate to disrupt this kumbaya moment, but I disag...I hate to disrupt this kumbaya moment, but I disagree. The whole point of building SPECIFIC models is to use them to explore the general principles that motivate them. Now, it is possible that there are NO general principles (that's the way it looks to me wrt Bayes), in which case the only thing to look at are the specific proposals and there is nothing GENERAL to be learned. And that's too bad. That means that there is no theory guiding the modeling. This does not mean that the specific proposal are not interesting. No doubt they are. And, of course, the details matter. But, the take away message for me is that "Bayes" means nothing, so don't take it seriously. Good to know. Wish you had told us earlier.Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-606243494445551632016-04-14T05:35:33.354-07:002016-04-14T05:35:33.354-07:00I agree that discussing particular proposals and n...I agree that discussing particular proposals and natural language phenomena would more productive than the debate we've been having over the last few posts. The corollary is that we should make sure that we're not dismissing whole frameworks because of specific modeling choices that are not essential to those frameworks (and, in the case of MAP, are even at odds with the spirit of the framework). It wouldn't be productive if linguists stopped listening to you the moment you said "Bayesian model" because of misconceptions about the ideological commitments of the word "Bayesian" (ditto for "neural network").Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864640787642051975noreply@blogger.com