On 2/23/15, Steve Richfield via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > It dawned on me that disambiguation might be a really bad idea. Instead, > when dealing with the uncertain meaning of a passage, suppose the passage > were simply accepted for ALL of its possible meanings. Every pronoun could > be ANY of the available nouns, etc. Of course most of the "possible" > meanings would be complete nonsense, but let's see where this goes... > > There appears to be two obvious mechanisms where this would work itself > out: > > 1. The computer would be looking for things it could relate to - things > that address points of the computer's concern. The nonsensical > interpretations wouldn't do this, and so would be ignored. This would work > well for something like DrEliza. > > 2. The "flow of logic" from one sentence to the next would work for the > valid interpretations, but not the invalid interpretations. Some invalid > interpretations might work together, but simply letting the longest chain > win would probably outperform any known method of disambiguation. > > Of course it is possible that when the analysis is done, the posting or > letter could mean 2 or more different things. Here, it seems necessary to > accept ALL defensible interpretations. > > Thoughts? >
I like it. > Steve > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > 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 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
