before_revision: Machines show an increasingly broad set of linguistic competencies, thanks to recent progress in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Many algorithms stem from past computational work in psychology, raising the question of whether they understand words as people do . In this paper , we compare how humans and machines represent the meaning of words. We argue that contemporary NLP systems are promising models of human word similarity, but they fall short in many other respects. Current models are too strongly linked to the text-based patterns in large corpora, and too weakly linked to the desires, goals, and beliefs that people express through words. Word meanings must also be grounded in vision and action , and capable of flexible combinations in ways that current systems are not. We pose concrete challenges for developing machines with a more human-like, conceptual basis for word meaning . We also discuss implications for cognitive science and NLP .
after_revision: Machines have achieved a broad and growing set of linguistic competencies, thanks to recent progress in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Psychologists have shown increasing interest in such models, comparing their output to psychological judgments such as similarity, association, priming, and comprehension, raising the question of whether the models could serve as psychological theories . In this article , we compare how humans and machines represent the meaning of words. We argue that contemporary NLP systems are fairly successful models of human word similarity, but they fall short in many other respects. Current models are too strongly linked to the text-based patterns in large corpora, and too weakly linked to the desires, goals, and beliefs that people express through words. Word meanings must also be grounded in perception and action and be capable of flexible combinations in ways that current systems are not. We discuss more promising approaches to grounding NLP systems and argue that they will be more successful with a more human-like, conceptual basis for word meaning .
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: show an increasingly broad
edit_actions: have achieved a broad and growing
edit_actions: clarity
edit_actions: meaning-changed clarity clarity
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: Many algorithms stem from past computational work in psychology,
edit_actions: Psychologists have shown increasing interest in such models, comparing their output to psychological judgments such as similarity, association, priming, and comprehension,
edit_actions: meaning-changed
edit_actions: meaning-changed meaning-changed meaning-changed
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: they understand words as people do
edit_actions: the models could serve as psychological theories
edit_actions: meaning-changed
edit_actions: clarity meaning-changed meaning-changed
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: paper
edit_actions: article
edit_actions: style
edit_actions: style style clarity
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: promising
edit_actions: fairly successful
edit_actions: clarity
edit_actions: clarity clarity meaning-changed
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: vision and action , and
edit_actions: perception and action and be
edit_actions: clarity
edit_actions: clarity clarity clarity
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: pose concrete challenges for developing machines
edit_actions: discuss more promising approaches to grounding NLP systems and argue that they will be more successful
edit_actions: meaning-changed
edit_actions: meaning-changed style meaning-changed
edit_actions: D
edit_actions: . We also discuss implications for cognitive science and NLP
edit_actions: coherence
edit_actions: coherence coherence clarity