There are many papers published on learning of formal grammars from examples... it's a well-understood problem, addressable via neural nets, statistical learning methods, genetic programming and so forth...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. I don't understand the following statements. Could you explain it > some more? > > - Natural language can be learned from examples. Formal language can not. > I think that you're basing this upon the methods that *you* would apply to > each of the types of language. It makes sense to me that because of the > regularities of a formal language that you would be able to use more > effective methods -- but it doesn't mean that the methods used on natural > language wouldn't work (just that they would be as inefficient as they are > on natural languages. > > I would also argue that the same argument applies to the first statement of > following the following two. > > - Formal language must be parsed before it can be understood. Natural > language must be understood before it can be parsed. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:23 PM > *Subject:* Lojban (was Re: [agi] constructivist issues) > > Why would anyone use a simplified or formalized English (with regular > grammar and no ambiguities) as a path to natural language understanding? > Formal language processing has nothing to do with natural language > processing other than sharing a common lexicon that make them appear > superficially similar. > > - Natural language can be learned from examples. Formal language can not. > - Formal language has an exact grammar and semantics. Natural language does > not. > - Formal language must be parsed before it can be understood. Natural > language must be understood before it can be parsed. > - Formal language is designed to be processed efficiently on a fast, > reliable, sequential computer that neither makes nor tolerates errors, > between systems that have identical, fixed language models. Natural language > evolved to be processed efficiently by a slow, unreliable, massively > parallel computer with enormous memory in a noisy environment between > systems that have different but adaptive language models. > > So how does yet another formal language processing system help us > understand natural language? This route has been a dead end for 50 years, in > spite of the ability to always make some initial progress before getting > stuck. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- On *Wed, 10/22/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote: > > From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] constructivist issues > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 12:27 PM > > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com >> *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 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> 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/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > 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/> | > 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/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- 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 ------------------------------------------- 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
