PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (09/01/83)
Given the downhill trend of some contributions on natural language
analysis in this group, this is my last comment on the topic, and is
essentially an answer to Stan the leprechaun hacker (STLH for short).
I didn't "admit" that grammars only reflect some aspects of language.
(Using loaded verbs such as "admit" is not conducive to the best
quality of discussion.) I just STATED THE OBVIOUS. The equations of
motion only reflect SOME aspects of the material world, and yet no
engineer goes without them. I presented this point at greater length
in my earlier note, but the substantive presentation of method seems
to have gone unanswered. Incidentally, I worked for several years in a
civil engineering laboratory where ACTUAL dams and bridges were
designed, and I never saw there the preference for alchemy over
chemistry that STLH suggests is the necessary result of practical
concerns. Elegance and reproduciblity do not seem to be enemies of
generality in other scientific or engineering disciplines. Claiming
for AI an immunity from normal scientific standards (however flawed
...) is excellent support for our many detractors, who may just now be
on the deffensive because of media hype, but will surely come back to
the fray, with that weapon plus a long list of unfulfilled promises
and irreproducible "results."
Lack of rigor follows from lack of method. STLH tries to bludgeon us
with "generating *all* the possible meanings" of a sentence. Does he
mean ALL of the INFINITY of meanings a sentence has in general? Even
leaving aside model-theoretic considerations, we are all familiar with
he wanted me to believe P so he said P
he wanted me to believe not P so he said P because he thought
that I would think that he said P just for me to believe P
and not believe it
and so on ...
in spy stories.
The observation that "we need something that models human cognition
closely enough..." begs the question of what human cognition looks
like. (Silly me, it looks like STLH's program, of course.) STLH also
forgets that is often better for a conversation partner (whether man
or machine) to say "I don't understand" than to go on saying "yes,
yes, yes ..." and get it all wrong, as people (and machines) that are
trying to disguise their ignorance do.
It is indeed not surprising that "[his] problems are really concerned
with the acquisition of linguistic knowledge." Once every grammatical
framework is thrown out, it is extremely difficult to see how new
linguistic knowledge can be assimilated, whether automatically or even
by programming it in. As to the notion that "everyone is an expert on
the native language", it is similar to the claim that everyone with
working ears is an expert in acoustics.
As to "pernicious behavior", it would be better if STLH would first
put his own house in order: he seems to believe that to work at SRI
one needs to swear eternal hate to the "Schank camp" (whatever that
is); and useful criticism of other people's papers requires at least a
mention of the title and of the objections. A bit of that old battered
scientific protocol would help...
Fernando Pereira