X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-else-reply-to: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:57:37 PST
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: language
              5 Nov 1992 14:11:44 -0800 <92Nov5.170135pst.12291@alpha.xerox.com>

(penni sibun 921106)

   >   I agree -- intentions (reference signals) ARE the ONE BIG difference
   >   between PCT and ALL other models of living systems.
   >
   >nonsense.  intentions are one of the many banes of traditional ai.

   Well, maybe you are right. They do talk about intentions a lot.
   My impression is that in most cases the intention is modelled as a
   command to produce action rather than as a specification for perception.

you're right--their idea of intentions is silly.  but it is inaccurate
to claim that no other model than pct includes intentions.

   >re: below.  i can't make much sense of yr cryptic equations.  i don't
   >think you answered my question.  i didn't ask whether you thought
   >there were hidden loops in my model.  i asked how you could make a pct
   >model that accounted for the same phenomena.  obviously, i believe
   >that the phenomena my model captures are important.  i'd like to see
   >how you think pct could account for the same process.  could you
   >please try again?

   Ok. This is a very fair question. Perhaps you could describe the
   phenomenon that your model "captures".

i guess i'll just repeat the text until you address it.  (why are you
putting my techno-jargon in scare quotes?)

   > this is a basic sketch of my model: i cast
   >the issue as deciding what to say next.
   > another way to characterize this might be 1) where are we in the
   >linguistic structure (ws) and 2) where are we in the structure of
   >``meaning(s)'' (?) we are talking about.
   >  ignoring the rest of the
   >context for the nonce, what is said next is determined both by 1) and
   >by 2).  this implies that it is *not* the case that the ``meaning'' is
   >selected and then the linguistic structure is found to fit it, and the
   >next bit of language is produced.


   From your discussion with Avery it sounds like
   your model (Salex, right?) produces sentences that describe scenes.

oh, dear.  you must have fogotten the other language thread.  salix
(the program that instantiates some aspects of my model) most
emphatically does not produce sentences.  salix produces text in
increments that are a word or longer long.  the texts can be about
anything that can be encoded in a way salix can understand; the
principle criterion is that the underlying connectivity of the subject
matter be explicit or explicable to the system.  salix has produced
texts about houses, families, airports, and text style.  examples of
salix's output in the first and last domains are at the end of the
message.

   I think you already have a discreet PCT model -- which
   is fine. The references are each of the "descriptions" that should be
   produced.

what are you calling ``descriptions''?  salix doesn't have any _a
priori_ description of the text it will produce.  it has a bunch of
stuff it ``knows'' (encoded in the kb), it has some linguistic tools
for expressing that knowledge, and it has a completeness criterion so
it knows when it can stop.

   The perceptions are logical variables -- either they are
   true of false.  The references for each variable is set at true.

no, i don't think that's sufficient.

   Then
   you go through you inference engine and parser and produce states
   of those variables.

no....the inf. engine is incidental--it's not a core part of the
machinery.  and there's not a parser, under any construal of that term,
i think (talk about a word becoming useless once its technical meaning
becomes generalized!).

   A higher order system is looking for all the
   reference perceptions to be set to true -- then you are done.

no, a higher order system looks for the completeness criterion to be
satisfied, and then salix *can* stop--but doesn't *have* to.  can you
have that kind of variable in pct?

   But I think it would be good to see the data on the phenomenon before
   judging the value of the model -- control model or not.

i certainly am not interested in your judging the value of my model.
if you'd like to look at my data and some of my analysis, please dig
out my thesis.  what i'd like you to try to do is to assume--for just
a few minutes--that i have an interesting and intelligent proposal
(viz., what has been said and what there is to say codetermine what
can be said now), and work with me to cast that model in pct terms.
if we can do that or if we fail in an interesting way, we both might
learn something.

    [Avery Andrews 921106.1348]

   Aside from the one Martin Taylor pointed, out, another difference
   between language production and ordinary control situations stems
   from the discreteness inherent in language.

my original mentor in natural language generation called this
``indelibility.''  this has the additional connotation that not only
is something said discretely, but it can't be unsaid.

cheers.

				--penni

================================================================

nb:  each line of text corresponds to one increment of salix's output.
the house texts are based on descriptions given by people.  the style
texts conform to requirements given by a colleague of mine.

house description:

OK
we can start at the side door
and then there's a entrance hallway
then
in the kitchen
there is a window
which is large
and is a picture window
it has two flanking windows
and faces the backyard
and if we're facing that window
on the right is the sliding glass door
and a window
which is small
if we're facing the backyard
on the left is the stove
and a refrigerator
and if we're facing that window
underneath is the sink
then a dishwasher
then there's a living room
it has
a window
which is large
in it
and then there's a short hallway
and
Ann's bedroom on the left
Claire's bedroom on the right
and
a bathroom in the middle
oh yeah
and then there's Penni's bedroom
and a long hallway
that's it


text-style description:

this is a
formal
document
but it still manages to be
clear
non-technical
and
straightforward
and therefore is easy to read
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU