[jncfhnb]

Ehhh I don’t think that’s accurate. The problem is not linking 4 words. It’s linking 4 words without accidentally triggering other, semantically adjacent words.

This task could probably be solved nearly just as well with old school word 2 vec embeddings

[lolinder]

Right, that's what I meant to be getting at: when you connect 4 words with as much stretching as o1 did there, you're running a real risk that the other party connects a different set. Unless that other party is also you and has the same learned connections at top of mind.

[furyofantares]

> This task could probably be solved nearly just as well with old school word 2 vec embeddings

I've tried. This approach is well beyond awful.

[jncfhnb]

I see a few papers published that did exactly this successfully. It also just sounds crazy that it wouldn’t work well.

It’s odd to me that you would confidently claim it’s “beyond awful”.

[furyofantares]

I'm confidently relaying my experience. But I get that I was extremely terse and overly general in my reply.

I haven't surveyed all the papers, although I have read some. And all the ones that I've seen that work okay -- do so by using a language graph or word association graph in their algorithm. Not just embeddings. Even then the results don't look good to me compared to human performance.

Why does it sound crazy that it wouldn't work well? Have you used word embeddings much? Maybe you have and have good reason to think this - I don't mean to imply otherwise. But it doesn't sound crazy to me that it wouldn't work well.

If I am wrong I would love to know it.