A computer program that is looking for categories by association and substitution, for example, can be said to be using a grammar. However, that is not the same thing as a natural language grammar. In other words, by using different kinds of procedures my program will be able to detect some common categories and this will be one way - there will be other ways - that it could begin to learn something about the simple grammars that I want to teach it. If it can learn something about some simple context-free grammars then it can learn something about some simple Type 0 grammars (which can use both context-free grammars and context-sensitive grammars.) Jim Bromer
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > I have been talking about an AI program that will learn a simple natural > language from text IO for some time. It would derive categories without > using an a priori grammar. My claim is that because it is feasible to use > a program that is able to *learn* the grammars of simple programming > languages (without relying on an a priori grammar) then it would be > feasible for the program to learn a simple more natural like grammar > (without relying on a pre-programmed grammar). I have never been talking > about using the grammars that are typically used with nlp for as long as I > have known you, but I am interested in the computational methods that would > allow a program to *learn* some grammar. I don't know how to explain this > to you if after all these years you still do not understand what I am > talking about. To put it another way, there are some common > insights behind Pei's ideas and mine. > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Also Jim, >> >> I've seen a lot of text but no architecture diagrams from you. Figure 1 >> in the following >> >> http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS13/paper/view/5772/5944 >> >> might be a good architecture for what you're trying to accomplish. >> >> Roland Hausser's language proplets look very similar to Schilling and >> Narayanan's X-Schemas. >> Hausser also has Context schemas that don't include the surface lexeme >> attribute. I think it's >> well worth it to take a serious look at this paper and Hausser's two >> books. >> >> As for Pei's approach, I think it's quite interesting. I ran it by >> Roland and he was intrigued as well. >> >> Cheers, >> >> ~PM >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Text-Based AI Should Be Able to Handle -Simple- >> Context-Sensitive Language >> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:09:26 -0800 >> >> >> Watch Pei's video at least and see. >> >> ~PM >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:09:53 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Text-Based AI Should Be Able to Handle -Simple- >> Context-Sensitive Language >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Pei Wang's video (wherein it's demonstrated that you don't even need a >> grammar at all). Intriguing... >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAFt3o6x-KU&list= >> PLZlLHCryX93J5O2iGzkSd7HjRKU9kb0tF&index=31 >> >> >> I don't understand what you are getting at - as it relates to what I have >> been talking about. >> Jim >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Piaget Modeler < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> I would recommend a couple of Roland Hausser's books: >> >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Computational-Model-Natural-Language-Communication/dp/354035476X >> >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Computational-Linguistics-Talking-Robots-Processing/dp/3642224318/ >> >> and >> >> Pei Wang's video (wherein it's demonstrated that you don't even need a >> grammar at all). Intriguing... >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAFt3o6x-KU&list=PLZlLHCryX93J5O2iGzkSd7HjRKU9kb0tF&index=31 >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:39:00 -0500 >> > Subject: [agi] Re: Text-Based AI Should Be Able to Handle -Simple- >> Context-Sensitive Language >> > From: [email protected] >> > To: [email protected] >> >> > >> > Context Free and Context Sensitive grammars are based on >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy >> > A programming language is based on a strong foundation of a >> > context-free grammar. Imagine a text-based AI program that would be >> > able to learn through trial and error. I believe that it is possible >> > to create such a program that would be able to learn a very simple >> > programming language - like simple database commands. Then, relying on >> > an incremental argument, I am saying that it should be feasible to >> > write a similar program that could learn a simple context sensitive >> > language. But the references to the formal grammars are only meant to >> > help you understand what I am trying to get at. As I read the >> > Wikipedia entries I realized that my use of the technical terms was >> > not quite right but I feel that it is ok because I was really talking >> > about a simple natural language. If it is feasible to write an AI >> > program that can learn a simple programming language then it should be >> > feasible to write an AI program that could learn a simple version of a >> > 'natural' language by using the simpler database commands. Why isn't a >> > database able to learn a simple natural language? Because the ability >> > to learn is a prerequisite. >> > I also made a reference to type IV language in the thread, but I >> > should have said a type 0 language (or type 0 grammar). In fact my >> > argument is based on the fact that a program which was able to learn >> > some simple context-free database commands would be able to use those >> > commands to learn some simple context-sensitive grammars. So I am >> > really speaking of a Type 0 language. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > I am convinced that it would be easy to get a text-based Learning-AI >> > > program learn to respond in fairly simple ways to simple texts. (And >> > > I will be in a position to try it out in the near future.) The >> > > question is whether this kind of ability has to be at the expense of >> > > an ability to integrate more sophisticated kinds of learning into it. >> > > >> > > I just do not see why people have not produced solid examples of >> > > simple learning using text-based AI unless the problem was either that >> > > they felt they needed to impress the skeptics or they became >> > > confounded by their own, more complicated use of language. >> > > >> > > Simple language does not have to be at the level of a programming >> > > language. I think that programming languages are "context free" >> > > because even though the apparent context may seem to violate the >> > > context of the substrings taken separately, any particular string >> > > (that is any grammatical string) will still only generate one >> > > particular output. >> > > >> > > So a computer could (genuinely) learn about simple strings that might >> > > not be context free and use them to generate different points. As >> > > long as this was kept relatively simple it should be completely >> > > feasible and it might be a good starting point to examine what was >> > > going on. (Even though a text only AI program would not be capable of >> > > applying its knowledge in a sophisticated way, it could still >> > > constitute genuine learning in my opinion because it would be able to >> > > learn new things within the domain of the text-based interactions.) >> > > >> > > So even though my data management system is neither simple nor >> > > sophisticated, I believe that I will be able to use it for simple but >> > > somewhat sophisticated kind of learning which would be general within >> > > the limits of the domain of text. >> > > >> > > Jim Bromer >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------- >> > AGI >> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> > RSS Feed: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc >> >> > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jim Bromer >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Piaget Modeler < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Jim Bromer > -- Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
