Re: Natural Language
>Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:06:04
>To: mdeland at nwinfo.net
>From: "William J. Oney" <brown60 at zianet.com>
>Subject: Re: Natural Language
>
>Ok... this stuff is probably way over my head but... I love the subject :)
>by the way, I'm new here, and my name is William Oney, and I'm 18...
>and I basically screw around never finishing anything I program... oh
well... hehe
>anyhoo...
>
>>>teaching the human language to the computer with similar
>>>expectations you would have of a learner of any foreign
>>>language.
>>hrmmmm......
>>firstly, when we say "human language" do we mean English?
>>(petty point perhaps, but! IMHO English is the worst
>>language to actually code a natural language in....
>>a better language is one that is more inherently "discrete"
>>or "digital" as opposed to English, which is pretty wacked)
>
>---what about all of them?
>---it's a computer right... don't have to worry about not remembering... or
being too complicated...
>
>>secondly, teaching someone who *already* knows a language
>>(any language) to be verbose/fluent in another language
>>is *very* different ....*very different* indeed... from teaching
>>someone who knows *no* language to speak any language
>>at all. IMHO, the way we might want to think about
>>implementing this is to use the context of teaching an
>>infant to speak...since... in this context, the computer
>>is much more akin to an infant than it is akin to an adult
>>foreigner learning another language.
>
>
>
>>>I tried making a natural language system using English to
>>>English interaction, but it didn't work very well for the very
>>>reasons cited by other members of the list.
>>and for perhaps the reason above?
>>
>>>But now I'm using
>>>an idea originally proposed by the UN -- using an intermediate
>>>language that logically defines grammar and vocabulary sorted
>>>topically.
>>much better... and perhaps more "digital" in nature.
>>each word _meaning_ one thing and one thing only,
>>each word _being_ one thing and one thing only.
>
>---so we're not talking about artificial intelligence?
>
>>no words that are nouns and verbs, or words like
>>"read" and "read" (heh...which is which eh?)
>>couldn't this intermediate language be *the*
>>language itself? the actual natural language?
>>and would this intermediate language be a
>>true natural language, or as I said before, would it
>>be in fact a "high-level" language instead?
>>
>>--snip--
>>
>>here's another way this could be done...i think?...
>>heh...
>>using the premise of the infant, and perhaps
>>some theory from neural network programming,
>>supposeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....
>>what if......BIG if....
>>what if we took a computer, gave it some sort of
>>rudimentary interaction with its environment,
>>let it begin making its own associations, letting
>>it figure out from its surroundings what its own
>>natural language will be, based on interaction
>>with others using their own natural language.
>>an infant learning to talk from its parents.
>>much research has been done in this area, the
>>biggest snafu so far that i have seen is
>>processor power and patience...
>>the first is now perhaps not much a problem
>>anymore...the second...patience on the part
>>of the researchers... no comment :)
>>will this approach give us the result we desire?
>>will it give us natural language programming?
>>yes.
>>will it give it to us rapidly?
>
>--- Here's the main reason I replied...
> I'm probably being naive thinking not many people have thought of this,
but
> giving it the ability to browse the world wide web, not a very good
teacher...
> but more human-like language... eh... more rapid than feeding it by
hand...
>
>>no.
>>can this approach use euphoria?
>>very much yes, and euphoria might just actually
>>be the better of the programming language choices
>>to do it in.... thoroughly variable data structures
>>that expand and collapse dynamically at runtime
>>and associate themselves in infinite potential
>>connections between each other...
>>hrmmmmmm....
>>sounds like neurons?
>>sounds like how a baby learns?
>>association 1 is experienced so, insert that
>>association into a variable at such and such
>>place without regard to what it might be, or how
>>big (read, number of neurons needed to associate)
>>that association might be... shove it in and euphoria
>>just makes the sequence larger... handy for this...
>>
>>'nuff rambling ...'nuff food for thought :)
>>Mike.
>>
>
>well... I need to read a lot more before I can begin to offer much
intelligence to your conversation, but it stimulates my brain... :)
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
