Chapter 3 Psycholinguistics and Artificial Intelligence

If G.Kasparov himself once lost a chess game to a computer, then the question of what can and what is not “thinking devices” (“artificial intelligence”) seems inappropriate. Because from this moment even the most stubborn skeptics pretended that nothing had actually happened. And as if they did not repeat a few years ago: what self-confident cybernetics called “artificial intelligence” cannot be compared with natural intelligence: in no sense. Arguments? Please, as much as you like.

First of all, any normal homo sapiens thinks not according to a program drawn up by “someone”, but independently. Secondly, the homo has at its disposal a natural language (NL) and independently accumulated experience of life (AJ). Both the NL and the HL are open systems. In other words: both systems are replenished and developed almost infinitely - in the process of life itself and in the process of communicating with their own kind. Thirdly, homo sapiens has vital goals (he himself, homo, set), is able to set the objectives associated with the goals himself. Homo, therefore, is emotional and can react to any situation in any way - enjoy success, be upset because of failures, etc. And all this “pr” stimulates him, homo, vital (energy, for example) tone, increases or decreases his interest in his activities, to life in general. And the fact that some have called it “artificial intelligence” is an absolutely non-independent and soulless thing that doesn’t care about life and death. And, therefore, - curiosity, interest, excitement, ambition, the spirit of competition with their own kind, love of humanity and their neighbors, hatred of enemies (and evil in general) ... In short, the car has nothing that drives homo sapiens to the knowledge of the world and actions for the benefit of society and myself.

Fourth, and finally, at the disposal of homo there is such a powerful one (and so mysterious, in essence, for an indefinite and unexplored thing, like intuition. Without which there is not and cannot be only real creativity, but also

moments of joy, success or failure. Or misfortune. Or approach to the expected truth. Without a likeness of intuition, even our cat or dog cannot live. Maybe even fish ...

So cybernetic obviously blundered with. its loud term. "Program" - please. "Computing device" - very well. "Modem", "monitor)," display "as you like. But - “intellect” ?! In no case.

Arguments are serious. They need to answer. Let's try.

1. Does homo sapiens live outside the program?

We assert: there are many objective (not on our particular homo dependent) circumstances, always actively participating in the compilation of its supposedly own program. And even completely define it. Just homo is not aware of this. Although it is obvious. Well, in fact: the seasons and seasons of the day are changing. And a normal homo obediently puts on a winter coat or exposes up to shorts; falls asleep on the go or wakes up, ready to wake. This is all - according to the laws of nature, broken - again by the laws of nature - only by night predators. And imitating them "homo-owls." Another example (of social origin) is, say, “contract terms”: signed an agreement on night shift work - rearrange the alarm clock to wake up in the evening. And sleep yourself in the afternoon, like a natural owl.

I joined the army - be ready for such a regime of the day that you (sorry for the pun) and never dreamed of in a dream (in a civilian): sleep and wake up, eat and run, not when you want to, but “when your foreman orders you. Or not even a sergeant. Do you want to be drafted into the army? Go through the commission, get and present the documents at the military registration office. Also you run into not according to your own program, but according to the military registration office program.

If you have a bear stepped on the ear, the musicians will not be allowed. Although you are not to blame. This is your native genes so (without your knowledge) programmed. The same - if you do not know how to draw, sculpt, dance ballet, opera or pop sing. True, we have gone too far with the last statement: there, how many of them, mediocre entertainers! But, you see, you still have to make it through this voiceless crowd. And it is difficult - each of the crowd has its own “program”, agreed - note! - with

“Programs” of many thousands (if not millions!) Of viewers-listeners. Have you noticed how they all “baldeyut” - not from real music, but from the stunning decibels of “heavy rock” or “techno”? They even jump up from their seats, raise (immediately, as if on cue) hands, swaying in time with the beats of the "orchestra." Doesn't each of these viewers-listeners act according to a cruel program of bad taste? Oh, these programs, although not so diverse, but very, very tough. Even a dull and not at all new computer model will immediately write “music” according to such a program.

Oh, you are not fond of this type of modern stage? Good. Even beautiful. But here's the question: why do you dress like others? And not like, say, Robinson was dressed in the famous illustrations of the immortal book of Daniel Dafoe? Ugly? Not accepted? And who is “not accepted”? Who said that "ugly"? You yourself? It is not true that other programs have decided it for you - the trendsetters programs. And if you just wear "what is", "what could get", then your choice is limited too. Others many also wear this "that is."

Eat and drink you want "in their own way"? It will not work: food and drink are made in large, even mass, series. And competent manufacturers and sellers of these edible products very accurately know that “they are in the greatest demand”, which is “average”, and that is “least”. So, whatever you come up with, you belong to one of the well-known typological groups of the population. In a certain "type of consumer". Within such a group, you are not a proud single individual, but one of many twins.

It is known, let's say, that very “rich Buratino” in different countries buy for themselves non-standard Volvo or Peugeot or even Lada, and Rolls-Royces, as they say, “piece goods”. But the number of pieces of such goods exactly matches the number of pieces of orders. Piece goods themselves - this is a piece (manual, not conveyor) production, but not piece design. Therefore, all Rolls-Royces are similar to each other in all their essential properties, as well as the standard Lada (among themselves, of course).

Or maybe you, dear reader, have decided to get your own education and specialty? Great! But do not think that you will study in the “Vovochka school”

on “Vovochkin textbooks” with the help of “Vochivka teachers” and “Vovochkin professors”. And get into the "Vovochkin Firm" or "Vovochkin Theater". Nooo !!! You will not get anywhere from “your property” belonging to one or another typological group: character and temperament, abilities and aptitudes of skills and abilities, occupation and social status. Socium is not soft at all. It regulates the life of everyone strictly according to their own (slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, socialist or pseudo-socialist — all the more!) Programs-laws-codes-decrees-orders-orders-recommendations-permissions-rules-generally accepted norms ...

They will tell us (they will surely say!): But what about Pushkin? What about Mozart? But what about Socrates with Plato? Or, say, Einstein with Mendeleev, with Bor and Kurchatov? What about Kasparov with Fisher, with Capablanca and Alekhine? They, the great individuals, too, innumerable numbers! Uh, no! They just have "just numbers"! There are so few of them, so few that the entire enlightened part of the planet’s population knows them. And here we are - pass. Because never “artificial intelligence” will threaten Pushkin, Socrates, Tupolev, ...

And on Kasparov "program" has already swung. And not without success, as is known. But this does not detract from the merits of the personality of Garry Kasparov himself. And does not humiliate him. Otherwise he would not “sit down.” Because the world champion is fully aware that in this case, he - among other things - believes in the need to create effective “artificial intelligence” systems. And in good faith, with full dedication of their own abilities and strength, helped a greater cause. By the way, and without a special conversation with Garry Kasparov, it is clear that he perfectly understands the difference between natural and artificial intelligence. And he knows very well that his personality is not limited to one (of many) intellectual functions (the game of chess). And G. Kasparov will in no way deny that he studied a chess game. And this means that I mastered the programs of my teachers, including the skills of Alekhine, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Fisher and many others. It is absolutely clear that the computer program that G. Kasparov played with (and won, by the way; and will still win) is a synthesis of a multitude of chess games and situations. Synthesis produced, of course, with the help of excellent

chess players (among them were such chess giants as the late M. Botvinnik).

Therefore, the creation of intellectual programs is the result of the intellectual activity of professional people. And therefore, “artificial intelligence” is not “from the machine,” but from the brain of a skilled homo sapiens of a particular specialty. The current excellent chemist or builder will not claim that he is such a pack without the help of teachers and their textbooks, i.e. without their programs. And even the great Pushkin would not have become himself without, for example, Derzhavin's poetic experience. And Pushkin’s lines “I swear by Ovidian's shadow, Languages, I’m close to you!” - this is almost a direct recognition in the neighborhood of the poets of the “Pushkin galaxy”. And, by the way, with Ovidiev and in general with world poetic experience. Recognition of belonging to a certain "typological group", to its "program".

We hasten to substantially complement what has been said in this section. Personality is all the more original, the richer in it is the combination of the signs of the most diverse typological groups. Essentially useful features! Because from one phlegmatic tendency to immobility, the personality of Ivan Andreevich Krylov will not be built. And even - Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, who was kind and honest, and not just lazy.

None of the creators of "artificial-intellectual" systems has ever reached the point of absurdity - the statement that a machine can "everything", that it can replace "any" person and "in everything". None of the cyberneticists have planned and do not plan mass production of robotopoets, robot compositors, or robot artists. This was and is not about “replacing a person” at all, but about his release from that part of his mental work, which in principle can be assigned to a machine program. Another thing is that we still don’t know for sure that in human mental activity be performed by a computer, what is the limit of intellectual resources of a computer: And, then, it is necessary to try and do everything that “artificial intelligence” can. Only in this way will it be possible to determine that the computer cannot. This “remnant” will be evaluated as “truly human”, which cannot be replaced by anything. And if computer graphics today showed its great potential, then, in particular, it seriously facilitated the work of the designer. Is it bad? ..

2. HER and coolant - monopoly homo sapiens?

Behind this question lies the mass of the unknown. This is where the most complicated problems of the scientific field, called “psycholinguistics”, begin. But first, let's look at the story (2 pages) "Chameleon", written by a young man - he was 24 years old - the author. He, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, in 1884 did not yet know: he signed his miniatures as “Antosha Chekhonte”

In the story act; police warden Ochumelov, subordinate to him policeman Eldyrin, jeweler Khryukin, nameless people from the crowd and a kind of little dog that bit Hryukin by the finger.

The “program” of Warden Ochumelov is to restore order. Therefore, his first words are: “- What is the occasion here? Why here? This is why you finger? .. Who shouted? "

The situational “program” of the bitten Khryukin is to receive some compensation for the injury from the owner of the dog. Part of his remark: “About firewood with Mitry Mitrich. And suddenly this despicable for no reason at all for the finger.

Ochumelov, expanding his "program", threatens to draw up a protocol, "fine the bastard", and the dog - "exterminate". But someone from the crowd calls the owner of the dog General Zhigalov. With the name of such a high rank Ochumelov throws into heat. He immediately orders the policeman: "- Take off, Eldyrin, I have a coat." And then he changes the "program". Now it is necessary to justify the little dog and accuse Khryukin: “- She is small, and what a great thing you were! You must have scratched your finger with a nail, and then an idea came to your mind to break it .. ”

But at this time, someone expresses doubt that the dog belongs to the general. And Ochumelov instantly returns to his former "program": "- You, Khryukin, suffered and do not leave things so!". In the future, Ochumelov had to “change the program” more than once - depending on the doubts expressed by someone. And Eldyrin - then take off, then again put on the head of the coat. Because his only “program” is to execute the order of the authorities.

If we look at the story from a psycholinguistic point of view, we will find in it not only humor and sarcasm, not only excellent Russian written life observations. The Chameleon clearly reflects the fundamental laws

dimensions of the generation of speech types and typical acts of behavior in given situations of life, which are quite typical for Chekhov's time.

And now try to remove from the text of the story all the words belonging to Antosha Chekhonte (as the author), leaving only the words of the characters. Will it be clear what is at stake? No, it will not. And how did these same characters understand each other? After all, only one verbal (unambiguous) replicas-orders of Ochumelov are understood by the city Yeldyrin and are executed immediately. The rest becomes clear only due to the non-verbal (wordless) situation perceived by the participants of the event. In fact, the meaning of Ochumelov’s questions “- Why is it here?” “Why do you have a finger?” And others are clear only to the participants of the episode (and the “observer” who invented it, the young Chekhov). Who is she mean? Why Khryukin says that he has a “small job”? Why does someone Ochumelov give orders to Eldyrin (who is he?)? Why does he say “- No, it's a mess, your nobleness!” - what kind of disorder are we talking about? ..

The first conclusion from what has been said: speech is generated by us (and understood by others) not so much by itself, thanks to the spoken (or read) signs of HER, but not necessarily from a situation, from a context that cannot always be verbal (verbal). For those who are occupied with the problems of “artificial intelligence”, this means that the “knowledge bank” of a computer system must contain not only the EY, and to the fullest extent possible, but also some typical situations in which these statements by means of the EY are relevant. In many cases, situations and their elements should be presented not verbally, but clearly, in the form of photographs, drawings and diagrams.

In the third chapter of our book, we talked about speech genres as language design of typical situations of social interaction. However, speech is only the skin of the genre, its very being should be considered the very social being of people. Therefore, the study of communication genres should be based on a typology of behavioral genres of representatives of one or another ethnic group. And the introduction of the knowledge of the genre laws of human thinking into the computer’s memory will help to create “artificial intelligence”.

Only in the event that a substantial stock of typical situations in a given subject is accumulated in the indicated knowledge bank.

field or coolant together with the corresponding dialogical resources on the NL, only then it will be possible to talk about the human-like capabilities of the computer and, therefore, about the human-like possibilities of communication with it. Anyone who knows at least something about expert computer systems; Anyone who knows about the idea of ​​American Terry Winograd (his book Computer, Understanding Natural Language) and about the numerous successes in its implementation can be judged on the current capabilities of artificial intelligence. And also - about the colossal difficulties to be overcome by its creators in all developed countries of the world.

Because, for example, even very successful systems of automatic translation from one language to another are not yet analogous to the work of a human translator: a person knows not only the language, but also what is said in the text (and the real world corresponding to it). The translator has a coolant, the car does not.

Recall that psycholinguistics is trying to solve many difficult questions: how do we understand each other at once? What is it - “probabilistic prediction of speech”? How is IT related to our thinking? And if it is “connected inseparably” (this has been asserted for decades and even centuries), then how can you teach deaf and dumb children who, by definition, do not have HER, and cannot use it to hear instructions from the outside or ask any questions? But - once they are trained! - they think! And how do babies (until they master their own speech) understand their parents - with what help?

We only touched upon the problem indicated in the title. And for a complete answer to all the questions you need a lot of books. You can start with those listed in the bibliographic list.

Conclusion

We are completing a story about psycholinguistics - a young science, a branch of anthropocentric linguistics, which studies homo loquens (linguistic personality), a personality in its ability to communicate, the ability to speak, to speak, to speak, etc. even) the fashion for it, which has been observed especially recently, is dictated by the appeal of psycholinguistics to a real person, to a person in the world of his everyday communication. We are convinced that, having become acquainted with the ideas set forth in our book, the reader will be able to better imagine the nature of the human language, the nature of communication between people; he will be able to better understand himself and other people. We would very much like to have a bright, kind and cheerful idea of ​​psycholinguistics, science,which has now become a kind of linguistic biophilia (from "bio" life).

Traditional linguistics in its noble pathos of describing languages ​​imperceptibly for itself, step by step, moved away from the main goal and meaning of humanitarian knowledge, which is human knowledge. The birth of psycholinguistics and many related scientific branches was caused by the need to return linguistics to the fold of the humanities, to the field of human studies.

Our book tells the reader about the domestic psycholinguistics. And this does not mean that we ignore the achievements of our foreign brethren. Psycholinguistics originated in our and abroad (primarily in the United States of America) at about the same time. And the scientific achievements of researchers working outside our country are weighty and significant. However, we are convinced that our science can live a full life, develop and bear fruit only as a branch of the tree of our culture; a tree that feeds on the roots of Russian humanitarian knowledge — Russian classical linguistics, Russian (Soviet) psychology, Russian humanistic philosophy with its interest in personality, with its moral guidelines in the study of man. And it is these traditions, this unique spiritual attribute that developed over the centuries

Mosphera makes Russian psycholinguistics an intellectual phenomenon, unique in the continuum of world science.

Of course, in a small book, we could not tell about all aspects of psycholinguistics. And those of her problems, which were discussed, are far from final resolution. The areas of modern psycholinguistics are areas of lively discussion, these are questions that are waiting for answers, these are facts that need interpretation. The laws of the correlation of language and consciousness, words and meanings, riddles of the generation and understanding of statements, the secrets of the development of the communicative competence of the child, the secrets of interpersonal communication and many more. etc. - all this awaits young, inquisitive researchers, all those who care about the person in his very human incarnation - the ability to think and speak.

If our book has managed to awaken in the reader an interest in the "living language life", in real questions of thinking and speech, we can consider our task accomplished.