Indeed, this misidentifies language and knowledge as some bizarre occasionalist game,

On the occasion I generate the text, "who is the mayor of new york", I should receive the text, "antony cumio" (etc.).

For extremely narrow questions with canonical answers in a canonical form (eg., how many protons are in a gold atom) this is fine. This works as a kind of coincidence: for these types of questions is a coincidence that their answers can be canonical.

In general, language is a tool for navigating ones (principally social) environment. Absent this environment, mere text /has no meaning/. The question "what contributions did hegel make to philosophy?" has no canonical answer, and depends on a deep network of knowledge, belief, understanding and context which arises from being situated/embedded within some social environment.

The question means something different if asked by an 14 year old, vs. a professional philosopher. And if asked by a scientist, or if asked by a janitor.

Learning is a situated process, and language is a situated embedded phenomenon. Learning isnt acquiring a cannonical answer, it is a dialectical process of bridging the new meanings to the old ones you have acquired.

Not to quibble , you should receive Bill de Blassio as the current mayor of New York City .

You are perhaps thinking of Andrew Cuomo who recently stepped down as governor of New York State in a sexual harassment scandal.

I guess that feeds into the cultural/temporal ambiguities of "what is new york?" and "what is a mayor".

New York could be the state, and mayor could just be a word that means leader of an area.

Perhaps that is getting too into the realm of deterritorialisation, but the point being that these concepts are context specific.

Perhaps so, in any other topic thread it wouldn't have mattered as much, we are talking about abstract Wikipedia this kind of challenges will come when knowledge is expected to transcend language.

P.S. Also OP said "antony cumio" Andrew Cuomo is similar but quite different .

P.P.S. I wouldn't expect context to differentiate say between City of London and London City but New York City and New York state is somewhat well known ?

Both the city elections for mayor ( preferential voting) and state governor (sexual harassment) has been in the news lately.

Or it might change what city has and there be small but distinct differences between Mayor and for example City manager. So at one point in time they have city manager and then after that mayor. These two being similar, but distinct roles...

Not to even go defining what is a city...

> For example, what is the expected result of the query "how many colors are there in a rainbow?

Wouldn't it be...

For the majority of European languages, the answer will be 6, but in Russian language/culture, the answer will be 7 (there's additionally light-blue)

But expanded somewhat?

In the longer term, "semantic drift" might also be a problem. The article keeps referring to the example of the mayor of San Francisco. But the definition of mayor (i.e. what the job involves) changes over time, and the definition of San Francisco (i.e. precise boundaries, legal status) changes over time. Perhaps in this case there haven't been and won't be any major changes during the period of history we care about, but if you define millions of these QIDs there will presumably be a constant flow of awkward language-dependent questions about what they should refer to.

How could this be any worse than tracking and updating those shifts of definition across thousands of articles in hundreds of different languages?

The point is that "mayors of San Fransisco" does not have a single answer, and therefore any answer WikiData provides will be glossing over a mountain of nuance and important distinctions in terminology.

The same is true of a million million different individual and aggregated data points all across WikiData.

In the context of Wikipedia articles about the Western US city commonly called "San Francisco", the concept of "mayor" is sufficiently well defined that there is a single answer to it.

The concerns voiced here sound a little like "What if in a hundred years, GPT-255 has subjugated all of humanity into a hive-mind and the terms 'San Francisco' and 'mayor' are meaningless?"

Yes, well. One thing at a time.

I was using the singular example from the parent comment. If it would convince you more, I will provide others - though I'm sure you could think of some yourself, if the mood took you.

Wow, never knew some people were taught 6 colours in a rainbow! — know it's just an example in your point, but what European cultures/languages use 6 instead of 7?

I've never heard that rainbows are supposed to have a discrete number of colors.

It's always been the standard abstract that I've heard to teach around it.

In Ireland/UK it's something that gets brought up in primary and secondary schools, first when talking about rainbows and then later in discussions on optics/refraction — e.g. you'd get kids to make their own Newton's disc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_disc) and see colours blending together to white.

I was taught it as "Roy G. Biv". I still remember what the letters stand for, but I don't remember the difference between indigo and violet.

That's because there isn't a meaningful distinction between indigo (as a shade) and violet. IIRC, Isaac Newton thought it was important (for biblical numerology reasons) that there be 7 colors.

German has 6, french has 7 though

What you're talking about is called Linguistic Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity), which can be solved by having "facts" vs "opinions" coded into the abstract version. So a rainbow has way more than 7 colors, but humans can only see bands of those colors really. Then depending on language, the answer will change.

So the wikipedia page will (in both languages) tell all versions, leading to more culture share as we all can understand each other better.

> "facts" vs "opinions" coded into the abstract version

Tell me. Who gets to decide what is a "fact" and what is an "opinion".

An Israeli and a Palestinian would give you a different answer, just as one example.

"The official Israeli position is X and the official Palestinian version is Y" might be one factual way to state opinions. You can choose exactly how much should be decided as "fact".

Not disagreeing with you so much as taking it a bit further ...

It would be highly controversial to claim that any organisation has a valid mandate to represent the Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Israeli government, in order to avoid angering a significant part of the their electorate, cannot offer a firm opinion on certain questions, such as where the borders of Israel are. And everyone's very fond of "stategic ambiguity" and "plausible deniability" and all that stuff.

So your facts end up being something like: News outlet N claimed at time T1 that person P, claiming to represent organisation X, stated at time T2 something that can be accurately translated into language L as: ...

> So your facts end up being something like: News outlet N claimed at time T1 that person P, claiming to represent organisation X, stated at time T2 something that can be accurately translated into language L as: ...

That's good. Wikipedia already discourages "weasel words" and things like that, so adding specificity and information provenance would be a bonus.

In that case Israeli/Palestinian would be an input to the function?

From fifth-to-last paragraph of the article:

Even if you accept the premise that an internet encyclopedia should be written from a neutral point of view, it is clear that some knowledge is contested within cultures, such as whether the population of Israel should include occupied and contested territories, or whether Catalonia is better described as a Spanish autonomous community or its own country. If more language editions relied on Abstract Wikipedia as the central source of truth, then this dominant point of view could replace alternative perspectives. But Vrandečić countered that each volunteer community could decide for itself whether Abstract Wikipedia should be used as a baseline. The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia, will not mandate that different language versions be forced to use the machine-readable, abstract version. That means that, for example, Hebrew Wikipedia and Arabic Wikipedia could each continue to present very different articles for the topic of Jerusalem.

> For example, what is the expected result of the query "how many colors are there in a rainbow?" For the majority of European languages, the answer will be 6, but in Russian language/culture, the answer will be 7 (there's additionally light-blue).

That's true for Italian as well ("blu" and "azzurro", which is a light blue)

Similar with Polish - blue is "niebieski", light-blue is "błękit" or, more rarely, "lazur"

And French. Rouge Orangé Jaune Vert Bleu Violet Indigo.

Same for Spanish (at least in LATAM): celeste and azul.

Oh yeah in Italian there is also Celeste so there are three (although is pretty interchangeable with Azzurro)

I haven't looked at the spec, but presumably the model will output only a subset of any language. It seems pretty do-able providing there's the ability to add the (hopefully) rare sentence per-target-language manually.

I actually hope Wikipedia, or someone, knocks it out of the park because it could form the basis of a new kind of web.

> For the majority of European languages, the answer will be 6, but in Russian language/culture, the answer will be 7 (there's additionally light-blue).

In my country, a former British colony, we learn the acronym ROYGBIV in school. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. 7 colours.

I think a better query is "how many types of snow exist"? On my experience, one, snow, period. Somebody living in north Canada, probably have more variations of the snow. In Eskimo language, there are ~300 words to express the variations of snow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

Does this imply that every query about snow should be expressed in all these 300 variations of snow. Do I even know or care as a non-Eskimo speaker of all these variations?

We can always use the types of snow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_snow I count 6 types of snow 3 intensity of snowfall (which can also mean snow) 8 snow crystal classifications 4 types of snowpack material properties 7 wind induced snow structures 5 sun/temperature induced snow structure 9 ski resort classifications 7 informal classifications

Here's the crazy thing. Language is shaped by culture, yes. But culture of also shaped by language. WikiFunctions would essentially become a new language framework that could potentially impact culture. The things that WF values (being the only X to do Y), and that are readily expressible in that framework, could _potentially_ become the markers of success in modern culture. A cultural self-fulfilling prophecy.

Interesting In Indonesia (and related culture) we also have 7 Mejikuhibiniu Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, purple. We don't use indigo often in daily life though.

I always thought it was 7 colours universally: VIBGYOR

Do even English speakers know what "indigo" is?

Indigo is one of the oldest fabric dye. Wars were fought and nations survived on Indigo trade (ref: East India company)

So, no?

The blue colour of blue jeans, which were originally made with indigo dye.

There's a hint in there that maybe "indigo" is not really a word people use.

Oh, the article mentions it, I missed it. It's an entirely optional thing so far.

English native speakers (myself included) seem to have a real issue understanding that languages vary and aren’t all interchangeable collections of sounds. I blame the lack of bilingualism.

Languages have deeply embedded in themselves the corresponding culture and world views. A phrase like "not my cup of tea" would sound hilarious at best in most other languages. Narratives are even more culture-dependent. The same sequence of events can be presented with entirely different causal relationships based on the values of the writer.

>A phrase like "not my cup of tea" would sound hilarious at best in most other languages.

Only if translated literally word for word

A good translator can find a comparable idiom that neatly replaces it in the target language, but it is rare to have idioms that match exactly in their applicable scope. It depends on the context, on the tone of voice, on the age of the speaker, on other visible or hidden social classifiers, even on the region the original speaker hails from.

This is something humans (i.e., experienced translators) excel at. It is something computers cannot do except at a very basic level — they lack the cultural knowledge and autonomous connection making capability needed.

In Dutch I could translate 'not my cup of tea' in many ways depending on the context. Some examples:

Neutral translation in lieu of additional context: „Dit is niet naar mijn smaak.”

Young person in a social context: „Dit is niet echt mijn ding, nee.”

Middle age manager in a white collar office environment: „Nee, dit is 'not my cup of tea', zeg maar.”¹

Ironic and/or cynical down-to-earth jocular fellow: „Dit is niet mijn kopje thee.”²

1: Note the literal borrowing of English. 2: A literal translation used humorously, knowing full well that this is not 'correct'.

If human language reflect human culture, and NLPs are trained on written text, is it impossible that they can have the cultural context to make such a translation? Is it impossible that an NLP can get a query like "translate this phrase into informal slang Arabic" and the NLP properly does so?

I find it improbable at this state, because 'understanding human culture' and bridging the gaps between two languages without compromising the quality of the prose depends not just on written text, but also decades of experience in being a human being in that society/language, and being able to make connections which may not be apparent from texts. A computer would also miss the final step: our monitoring function that accepts or rejects translations as silly, down-right anti-social, or totally apt — that well honed Fingerspitzengefühl that comes from the total sum of your experience and maturity.

You would, in effect, have to train an artificial intelligence with a brain capable of mimicking ours by raising it as a child in our society (sometimes cheerfully acknowledged by sci-fi writers who employ such characters), and even then you would need to have a brain that processes certain events, happenings, and subtle hints the way a human being roughly does.

Perhaps someone will manage to train one in a suitable manner one day (far far away — not in our lifetime), but I wouldn't want to be responsible for debugging it.

Someone will manage to make one that is good enough for some purposes though. Plenty of semi-gibberish manuals included with products that strongly reek of machine translation these days.

Nice examples! Please also do "Nu komt de aap uit de mouw!"

Don't forget the evergreen "Unfortunately peanut butter!".

You can always find a good-enough substitute, but the original nuance will be lost. The native speaker can choose between "dislike", "would not prefer" or "not my cup of tea". The target language may have an even wider arsenal of phrases suited for different social occasions and across varying levels of politeness. Essentially, mapping the input to the output is a lossy process.

Obviously. That was the commenters point.

The commenter's point was that there is information that can be expressed in one language but not another (they're not all essentially the same). The fact that you can't translate a figure of speech doesn't evidence this.

I don't want to put words into their mouth, but I think the comment was more about how we think depending on the language we use rather than the concept we're able to express or not.

> A phrase like "not my cup of tea" would sound hilarious at best in most other languages.

It sounds like total nonsense to me even in english. I know what it means but the entire cultural context surrounding tea is simply not available to me. I don't even drink tea to begin with. Always assumed it was some british thing.

Idioms don’t have to make sense, and often don’t, due to semantic drift and language and cultural evolution. Indeed, one of the defining properties of an idiom is that it has meaning beyond its literal, reductionist interpretation.

Of course they make sense. Maybe they don't make sense today but they made sense back then to the people who started using the idiom. That's what I meant by cultural context. Something in their culture gave meaning to those words.

Eh, my point was that being able to use and understand idioms does not require knowledge of the original cultural context because their meaning has become uncoupled from their literal meaning. The saying could just as well be "it’s not my xyzzy of wargbl" and, if it became popular enough, would be perfectly understandable even though "xyzzy" and "wargbl" have zero meaning in English in and of themselves.

> The saying could just as well be "it’s not my xyzzy of wargbl" and, if it became popular enough, would be perfectly understandable

Yes, and it would still sound like total nonsense. I actually know concrete examples from internet culture that are pretty close to that. "I shiggy the diggy". Total nonsense yet becomes second nature after lurking certain forums for a few days.

The cultural context in the "xyzzy of wargbl" case is you made it up to prove a point. If it somehow became popular enough, fully understanding it would require the context of our conversation. It doesn't help explain the word choice since the words were made up to begin with.

Now that I thought about it, the "my cup of tea" thing must mean tea was extremely important to english speakers. Tea drinking must have been integral to their culture. They developed preferences and the concept of one's preferred tea made it into the language as a synonym for preference. Still surprising to me since this never happened to coffee or any other beverage.

You don’t need any cultural context. I’m not particularly familiar with boats, and different types of things “floating a boat” doesn’t even really make sense, but “Whatever floats your boat” never had an impact on my comprehension.

> You don’t need any cultural context.

Sure you do. At least if you're actually trying to understand what the words mean in the context they're used. I understand your "whatever floats your boat" example, including the cultural context. This tea business is completely foreign to me though.

I have no problem understanding these things. It's easy to infer meaning when they're used in actual conversation. When taken in isolation and without cultural understanding, these idioms sound like those made up sentences used for language practice.