BillK wrote:
On 11/1/06, Charles D Hixson wrote:
So. Lojban++ might be a good language for humans to communicate to an
AI with, but it would be a lousy language in which to implement that
same AI. But even for this purpose the language needs a "verifier" to
insure that the correct forms are being followed. Ideally such a
verifier would paraphrase the statement that it was parsing and emit
back to the sender either an error message, or the paraphrased
sentence. Then the sender would check that the received sentence
matched in meaning the sentence that was sent. (N.B.: The verifier
only checks the formal properties of the language to ensure that they
are followed. It had no understanding, so it can't check the meaning.)
This discussion reminds me of a story about the United Nations
assembly meetings.
Normally when a representative is speaking, all the translation staff
are jabbering away in tandem with the speaker.
But when the German representative starts speaking they all fall
silent and sit staring at him.
The reason is that they are waiting for the verb to come along. :)
Billk
Yeah, it wouldn't be ideal for rapid interaction. But it would help
people to maintain adherence to the formal rules, and to notice when
they weren't.
If you don't have feedback of this nature, the language will evolve
different rules, more closely similar to those of natural languages.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
