What does "accurate" mean in this context? If there's a standard meaning of it, I'd be glad to judge it by that.
But the metric the author offered, as their defining results, was some cute things with Putin and Obama.
So yeah, if the results are accurate relative to some standard metric, I wasn't disputing that. I was questioning the reliability of the results the author presented, about cute Obama/Putin connections.
Somewhat surprisingly, it was found that similarity of word representations goes beyond simple
syntactic regularities. Using a word offset technique where simple algebraic operations are performed on the word vectors, it was shown for example that
vector(”King”) - vector(”Man”) + vector(”Woman”)
results in a vector that is closest to the vector representation of the word
Queen.
In this paper, we try to maximize accuracy of these vector operations by developing new model
architectures that preserve the linear regularities among words. We design a new comprehensive test
set for measuring both syntactic and semantic regularities, and show that many such regularities
can be learned with high accuracy.
And if the author highlighted those as "the results", I would be impressed. As it stands, they were citing more "moonshot" kind of results like the ability to get abstract concept composition right, which is really hard to judge, because you don't know what set to sample over, or whether the equations are really insightful vs "I guess that might make sense...".
I'm much more confused over how the author characterized the results ("look at this Animal/Human/Ethics thing!"). Again, if there are standard metrics by which it did well, great! But why isn't he citing them rather than these more abstract, hard-to-judge victories?
This is the exciting part - where it feels like the computer understands you. It's not a test, it's just a conversation. You can ask the computer a question and get a really meaningful answer.
But the metric the author offered, as their defining results, was some cute things with Putin and Obama.
So yeah, if the results are accurate relative to some standard metric, I wasn't disputing that. I was questioning the reliability of the results the author presented, about cute Obama/Putin connections.