I've met some really really brilliant people who've been banging their head against that particular wall since the 1980s. The MIT AI Lab crew, for example, poured untold brainpower into symbolic inference. There was the whole "expert systems" movement. This all failed miserably, in disgrace, because nobody could ever get it to work, and "AI" became a dirty word. Later, there was Cyc, which was hyped on and off throughout the 90s. http://www.cyc.com/ After that, there were people who tried to reason over RDF tuples, which didn't work either: http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/semantic_s...

This idea pops up every 5 or 10 years and wastes a generation of brainpower. It never works. And let me be clear: There have been some terrifyingly brilliant people who were convinced that it ought to work, and who spent years of their life on it.

Meanwhile, any joker who can code up Bayes theorem or single value decomposition can get some results in a couple of weeks. Probability and statistics get results (as do more advanced numeric techniques). Logic deduction fails. I'm not even sure I could explain why. But I encourage you to think long and deeply on what Norvig has written on this subject. Or just buy Norvig's two AI textbooks (written before and after he discovered the joys of probability, basically), do some exercises, and compare the results you get.

Statistics isn't sufficient for fully understanding natural language (for that, a computer would have to go out and experience the world in the first person). But it is necessary.

The idea of breaking meaning into an inventory of discrete components like this is at least as old as Hjelmslev, I think even Saussure touches on it.

Part of it seems to me to be that you're breaking down words into words. Even if you write it in uppercase and call it a primitive, you don't have to spend too much time on cognitive linguistics to know that there's really nothing primitive about MAN or MONARCH...

See also: Andrej Karpathy, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Recurrent Neural Networks, http://karpathy.github.io/2015/05/21/rnn-effectiveness/, and try to replicate it with any formal semantics (good luck!).

Additionally, formal systems rarely incorporate for actual language, with some things being technically correct, but sounding weird, or things being incorrect, yet - prevalent (and a root for language evolution). See also: char2char translation (which accommodate for e.g. neologisms or typos).

The original Altavista Babelfish (which used SYSTRAN) used rule-based machine translation. It has been replaced by Bing Translator, but my recollection of the Babelfish was that it was accurate enough to be usable, and better than Google Translate was when it was first released. Google Translate has improved a lot recently. My only problem with it is that it doesn't understand the meaning of the words it's translating.

Neural networks are perfectly suitable for perception, e.g. image recognition. No argument there.

I think that's a fallacy that will haunt AI forever (or, more likely, will be the definitive civil rights struggle ca. March 25, 2035 6:25:45am to March 25, 2035 6:25:48am)

We tend to move the goalpost whenever AI makes advances. Where many people would have considered chess a pretty good measure of at least some aspect of intelligence, it seems like mundane number crunching once you know how it works.

It may be that we really mean consciousness when we say "intelligence", although if we ever find an easy formulation that creates a perfect "illusion" of consciousness, it may end up having some strong effects on people's conception of themselves that I don't necessarily want to witness.

If there are symbols, they're in the dimensions of the vector; but words only probabilistically suggest meaning, they don't categorically denote it.

With a symbolic approach, the right thing is to use a different symbol for each meaning, and disambiguate based on context (which you could identify either statistically or by using rules).

In particular, words are not repositories of meaning. They allude to concepts; new concepts are created and get forgotten on a regular basis. The connection between words and concepts waxes and wanes over time, and even the very timeline of a connection's strength can be used for allusion: using language to represent concepts that can only be coherently mapped by using previously-stronger allusions conveys a sense of being old-fashioned, while the reverse conveys future-thinking. Using allusions that are stronger within a milieu conveys social signalling information about group membership. Etc.

There's no way a human-maintained database is going to capture the subtlety here on anything like a timely basis. There's no universal truth, everyone's map is a little bit different, and the map is changing all the time.

People who speak the same language are able to communicate perfectly well, almost all of the time, across continents and centuries. New words are rare compared to existing vocabulary and often soon disappear from use. New concepts can readily be mapped onto existing vocabulary. People are able to learn other languages and improve their own with the help of dictionaries and grammar books. Things like humour, cryptic crosswords, and social signalling are edge cases. And things like deception are unrelated to language understanding at the semantic level.

We're discussing the best way for computers to understand natural language and communicate with people, and in practice that's either going to use unambiguous language or it's going to need human help or verification.

People who speak the same language are still prone to misunderstandings.

We may be overestimating our success in communication. Heck, I'm not even sure if my understanding of soon equals yours. Is it a century, a few decades, a few years? And why is it so different from the meaning when I use it to answer when lunch will be ready?

The former doesn't exist in human languages (we'd otherwise have gotten rid of the lawyers long ago), and the latter is infeasible. There is a another way.

Wouldn't that mean it was an actual full AI?