>> I think this would be a relatively pain-free way to communicate with an AI 
>> that lacks the common sense to carry out disambiguation and reference 
>> resolution reliably.   Also, the log of communication would provide a nice 
>> training DB for it to use in studying disambiguation.

Awesome.  Like I said, it's a piece of something that I'm trying currently.  If 
I get positive results, I'm certainly not going to hide the fact.  ;-)

(or, it could turn into a learning experience like my attempts with Simplified 
English and Basic English :-)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ben Goertzel 
  To: [email protected] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:27 PM
  Subject: [OpenCog] Re: [agi] constructivist issues



  This is the standard Lojban dictionary

  http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/

  I am not so worried about word meanings, they can always be handled via 
reference to WordNet via usages like run_1, run_2, etc. ... or as you say by 
using rarer, less ambiguous words

  Prepositions are more worrisome, however, I suppose they can be handled in a 
similar way, e.g. by defining an ontology of preposition meanings like with_1, 
with_2, with_3, etc.

  In fact we had someone spend a couple months integrating existing resources 
into a preposition-meaning ontology like this a while back ... the so-called 
PrepositionWordNet ... or as it eventually came to be called the LARDict or 
LogicalArgumentRelationshipDictionary ...

  I think it would be feasible to tweak RelEx to recognize these sorts of 
subscripts, and in this way to recognize a highly controlled English that would 
be unproblematic to map semantically...

  We would then say e.g.

  I ate dinner with_2 my fork

  I live in_2 Maryland

  I have lived_6 for_3 41 years

  (where I suppress all _1's, so that e.g. ate means ate_1)

  Because, RelEx already happily parses the syntax of all simple sentences, so 
the only real hassle to deal with is disambiguation.   We could use similar 
hacking for reference resolution, temporal sequencing, etc.

  The terrorists_v1 robbed_v2 my house.   After that_v2, the jerks_v1 urinated 
in_3 my yard.  

  I think this would be a relatively pain-free way to communicate with an AI 
that lacks the common sense to carry out disambiguation and reference 
resolution reliably.   Also, the log of communication would provide a nice 
training DB for it to use in studying disambiguation.

  -- Ben G



  On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

    >> IMHO that is an almost hopeless approach, ambiguity is too integral to 
English or any natural language ... e.g preposition ambiguity

    Actually, I've been making pretty good progress.  You just always use big 
words and never use small words and/or you use a specific phrase as a "word".  
Ambiguous prepositions just disambiguate to one of three/four/five/more 
possible unambiguous words/phrases.

    The problem is that most previous subsets (Simplified English, Basic 
English) actually *favored* the small tremendously over-used/ambiguous words 
(because you got so much more "bang for the buck" with them).

    Try only using big unambiguous words and see if you still have the same 
opinion.  

    >> If you want to take this sort of approach, you'd better start with 
Lojban instead....  Learning Lojban is a pain but far less pain than you'll 
have trying to make a disambiguated subset of English.

    My first reaction is . . . . Take a Lojban dictionary and see if you can 
come up with an unambiguous English word or very short phrase for each Lojban 
word.  If you can do it, my approach will work and will have the advantage that 
the output can be read by anyone (i.e. it's the equivalent of me having done it 
in Lojban and then added a Lojban -> English translation on the end) though the 
input is still *very* problematical (thus the need for a semantically-driven 
English->subset translator).  If you can't do it, then my approach won't work.

    Can you do it?  Why or why not?  If you can, do you still believe that my 
approach won't work?  Oh, wait . . . . a Lojban-to-English dictionary *does* 
attempt to come up with an unambiguous English word or very short phrase for 
each Lojban word.  :-)

    Actually, hmmmm . . . . a Lojban dictionary would probably help me focus my 
efforts a bit better and highlight things that I may have missed . . . . do you 
have a preferred dictionary or resource?  (Google has too many for me to do a 
decent perusal quickly)



      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Ben Goertzel 
      To: [email protected] 
      Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:11 AM
      Subject: Re: [agi] constructivist issues







        Personally, rather than starting with NLP, I think that we're going to 
need to start with a formal language that is a disambiguated subset of English 


      IMHO that is an almost hopeless approach, ambiguity is too integral to 
English or any natural language ... e.g preposition ambiguity

      If you want to take this sort of approach, you'd better start with Lojban 
instead....  Learning Lojban is a pain but far less pain than you'll have 
trying to make a disambiguated subset of English.

      ben g 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
            agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription   


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  




  -- 
  Ben Goertzel, PhD
  CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
  Director of Research, SIAI
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a 
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a 
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act 
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a 
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization 
is for insects."  -- Robert Heinlein



  --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"OpenCog General & Scientific Discussion List" group. 
  To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/opencog?hl=en 
  -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---




-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to