They might, but very unlikely.
> What has happened. Vaporware and results.
> It simply does not work. Language can not be
> sucessfully model. Languages are regularly formed,
> nor well formed.
and here's a great example of why it won't be "perfect".
just in the sentences quoted above: there should be a
question-mark after "happened"; there seems to be a
missing adjective before "results";' "successfully" is not
spelled correctly. and there seems to be a missing word
between "regularly" and "formed"; yet despite all these
shortcomings, i know exactly what you meant to say...
(and i don't mean to be picking on you if english is not
your first language. i only speak one language, so i am
the last person to criticize anyone else on that dimension.
Ouch! I am very sorry. Please excuse me. I had alot of work to do
long hours last week(,) and people in and out of the office.
I knew I had alot of booboos in my post.
the point is that human beings are very good at resolving
the ambiguity that results from incomplete information,
and we probably can't reasonably expect that of machines.
but it is simply not that case that ambiguity permeates
_every_aspect_ of language; clarity is not impossible.)
> All AI projects so far have failed
> and failure has been admitted.
yes it has been, yet deep blue can still beat
all but the best of the world's grandmasters...
Gottcha ,-)))) Big blue is not AI it is brute force.
I ould be glad to dicuss this one. Directly with you,
if you care to. This would be OT.
if you give up on teaching a machine "meaning",
and concentrate on giving it enough rules that
give the correct results most of the time, you can
get very close to finishing the job you want done.
That has been tried in some AI projects, and failed!
of course, this approach is considered "a trick"
by the artificial-intelligence people, whose aim
was to "teach meaning" rather than solve a task,
but that's why those artificial-intelligence people
have been such a failure themselves...
This is getting OT, too. But, The reason they are failing
is due to the pardigm that language is meaning.
Humans when resolving language(understanding) and
more so translating it use moren than thier knowledge
or the language to solve these tasks.
> When I see a OCR system that just uses raw results,
> then I will bow my head in recognition of true achieve meant.
a perfect example of what i just said:
the objective is to get accurate o.c.r.,
by whatever means necessary, and
_not_ to limit yourself to "raw results".
Yet, i order to get better over all result, we need
better "raw results" OCR has come a long way since
they use dictionary. Adding a DB with phrasal information
will bring along another 2 %, but the costs of the other
side would be about 50% in resources. Sure cheaper
computers, memory, availibity of google will help. Yet
it is not the holy grail. Also, as a OT example. How long have
we been waiting for the 3 liter car(3 liters per 100km).
Well, it has be here since the 80s. A engineer had modify
a VW rabbit(just the form of the pistons) and it only need 1 Gallon
per 62 miles!! Money rules. ( O.K. very off topic)
if doing some voodoo gave better o.c.r.,
we would do it. this isn't some kind of
"intellectual challenge" where we find it
necessary to tie our hands behind our back;
it is a practical job that needs to be done...
Exactly, my point. Things, work for most simple
every day tasks, but ....
Keith.