Language Pragmatics: Why We Can't Talk to Computers
Cody Adams is the Managing Editor of The Floating University. Prior to Joining FU, he worked at GreenSource Magazine and taught at New York University. He graduated from Vassar College and New York University's MFA program.
Speech recognition technology continues to fascinate language and cognitive science researchers, and Apple’s introduction of the Siri voice assistant program in its recent iPhone 4S was heralded by many as a great leap toward realizing the dream of a computer you can talk to. Fast-forward half a year later and, while Siri has proved to be practically useful and sometimes impressively accurate for dictation, the world has not been turned upside down. A quick Google search for “Siri fail” will provide you with the often unintentionally funny attempts by Apple’s voice recognition service to answer abstract questions or transcribe uncommon phrases.
But in a day and age when computers can win at Jeopardy and chess programs can consistently defeat the best human players, why hasn’t voice technology reached a similar plateau of mastery? Here is cognitive scientist, popular author, and Floating University professor Steven Pinker exploring the issue in a clip from his lecture “Say What? Linguistics as a Window to Understanding the Brain.”
In short, it’s all about context, and the kinds of leaps easily achieved by humans in casual conversation have thus far remained outside the reach of dynamic language processing programs. One need only watch this infamous 2008 Microsoft demonstration of its Windows Vista voice recognition software to be reminded how nascent this technology remains for the most part.
But Siri works pretty well much of the time, right? Interestingly, Apple approached the voice recognition game using an framework that is about as far from how humans understand speech as you can get. Every time you speak to Siri, your iPhone connects to a cloud service, according to a Smart Planet article by Andrew Nusca, and the following takes place:
The server compares your speech against a statistical model to estimate, based on the sounds you spoke and the order in which you spoke them, what letters might constitute it. (At the same time, the local recognizer compares your speech to an abridged version of that statistical model.) For both, the highest-probability estimates get the go-ahead.
Based on these opinions, your speech — now understood as a series of vowels and consonants — is then run through a language model, which estimates the words that your speech is comprised of. Given a sufficient level of confidence, the computer then creates a candidate list of interpretations for what the sequence of words in your speech might mean.
In this sense, Siri doesn’t really “understand” anything said to it, it simply uses a constantly expanding probability model to attach combinations of letters to the sounds you’re saying. And once it has computed the most likely identity of your words, it cross checks them against the server database of successful answers to similar combinations of words and provides you with a probable answer. This is a system of speech recognition that sidesteps the pragmatics question discussed by Pinker by employing a huge vocabulary and a real-time cloud-based feedback database. And Siri’s trademark cheekiness? Apple has thousands of writers employed inputting phrases and responses manually into the Siri cloud, continually building out its “vocabulary” while relying on statistics for the context.
Does this constitute true speech recognition, or is this just a more robust version of old-time AOL chat bots? If this is the way that speech recognition technology will evolve in the future, do you think that it will cross a database threshold so as to be indistinguishable from true speech recognition, even if there’s no pragmatic “ghost in the machine,” as it were? Or will computers never be able to truly "learn" language?
Visit The Floating University to learn more about our approach to disrupting higher education, or check out Steven Pinker's eSeminar “Say What? Linguistics as a Window to Understanding the Brain.”
How a cataclysm worse than what killed the dinosaurs destroyed 90 percent of all life on Earth.
While the demise of the dinosaurs gets more attention as far as mass extinctions go, an even more disastrous event called "the Great Dying” or the “End-Permian Extinction” happened on Earth prior to that. Now scientists discovered how this cataclysm, which took place about 250 million years ago, managed to kill off more than 90 percent of all life on the planet.
A new study discovers the “liking gap” — the difference between how we view others we’re meeting for the first time, and the way we think they’re seeing us.
We tend to be defensive socially. When we meet new people, we’re often concerned with how we’re coming off. Our anxiety causes us to be so concerned with the impression we’re creating that we fail to notice that the same is true of the other person as well. A new study led by Erica J. Boothby, published on September 5 in Psychological Science, reveals how people tend to like us more in first encounters than we’d ever suspect.
Using advanced laser technology, scientists at NASA will track global changes in ice with greater accuracy.
Leaving from Vandenberg Air Force base in California this coming Saturday, at 8:46 a.m. ET, the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 — or, the "ICESat-2" — is perched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta II rocket, and when it assumes its orbit, it will study ice layers at Earth's poles, using its only payload, the Advance Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS).
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.