Stephen Wolfram Quotes

I'm working on artificial intelligence. Actually, natural language understanding, which is to get computers to understand the meaning of documents.

Understanding of natural language is what sometimes is called 'AI complete,' meaning if you can really do that, you can probably solve artificial intelligence.

Language is too complex for a computer to understand. It's not going to be able to make sense of what people are saying en masse. We need a new type of discipline that puts together computer scientists and social scientists, who can add context to the situation.

Even today no computer can understand language as well as a three-year-old or see as well as a mouse.

Relevance is a search engine's holy grail. People want results that are closely connected to their queries.

If you write a blog post, you've got something to say; you're not just creating words and synonyms. We'd like the computers to actually pick up on that semantic meaning.

Computers will understand sarcasm before Americans do.

Humans are language machines, computers are language machines.

I think that the artificial-intelligence people are making a lot of noise recently, claiming that artificial intelligence is making huge progress and we're going to be outstripped by the machines.

The strange flavour of AI work is that people try to put together long sets of rules in strict formalisms which tell inflexible machines how to be flexible.

One of the best things to come out of the home computer revolution could be the general and widespread understanding of how severely limited logic really is.

Web pages are designed for people. For the Semantic Web, we need to look at existing databases.

In order to be truly intelligent, computers must understand - that is probably the critical word.

I'd rather see artificial intelligence than no intelligence.

Everyone talks about how much data's in the world. Except, actually, 80% of it is pretty blind to computers. I mean, it can store it. But if it's a movie, a poem, a song, it doesn't know what it's actually saying or doing.

If we want to take a bunch of phrases and run them through a Google and say 'Hey, who else has said them,' I can come up with the list in five minutes.

Without your data, Google couldn't pursue the dream of trying to figure out what you're really thinking when you're asking a question, of trying to discern, from the imprecision of your language, the exact answer you're looking for.

There are a lot of services trying to solve the information discovery problem, and no one has got it right yet.

Things that are so hard for people, like playing championship-level Go and poker, have turned out to be relatively easy for the machines. Yet at the same time, the things that are easiest for a person - like making sense of what they see in front of them, speaking in their mother tongue - the machines really struggle with.

It turns out you can train a neural network on a big body of text. It can be Wikipedia; it can be all the works of Charles Dickens; it could be all of the Internet. They can use grammar and put words together in interesting and convincing ways - and, I think, unexpected and beautiful ways.

Deep learning is already working in Google search and in image search; it allows you to image-search a term like 'hug.' It's used to getting you Smart Replies to your Gmail. It's in speech and vision. It will soon be used in machine translation, I believe.

When the world moves forward too fast for some people, they try to pull us all back with their fear.

China after Olympics will progress very slowly. But the demands for freedom - on the part of ordinary people but also party members - won't be as easy to contain.

People love seeing people trying to change stuff.

Thanks to the redundancy of language, yxx cxn xndxrstxnd whxt x xm wrxtxng xvxn xf x rxplxcx xll thx vxwxls wxth xn "x" (t gts lttl hrdr f y dn't vn kn whr th vwls r)