What if we did this: If a program can detect “natural language words” and encourage humans to re-write until the language is very, very clear, then this could open up the process of lawmaking to the other processing tasks you’re describing, without having to write natural language processing software.
It would also be useful to other fields where computer-processed language would be beneficial. THOSE fields could translate their natural language into language that computers can understand, then process it with a computer.
And if, during the course of using the software, the software is given access to both the “before” text (that it as marked as “natural language, please reword”) AND the “after” text (the precise, machine readable language which the human has changed it to) then one would have the opportunity to use those changes as part of a growing dictionary, from which it translates natural language into readable language on it’s own.
At which point, it would be capable of natural language processing.
I bet there are already projects like this one out there—I know of a few AI projects where they use input from humans to improve the AI like Microsoft’s Milo (ted.com has a TED Talk video on this) but I don’t know if any of them are doing this translation of natural language into machine-readable language, and then back.
Anyway, we seem to have solved the problem of how to get the software to interpret natural language. Here’s the million dollar question:
Would it work, business-wise, to begin with a piece of software that acts as a text editor, is designed to highlight ambiguities and anonymously returns the before and after text to a central database?
If yes, all the rest of this stuff is possible. If no, or if some patent hoarder has taken that idea, then … back to figuring stuff out. (:
An idea from a book called The Death of Common Sense—language has very narrow bandwidth compared to the world, which means that laws can never cover all the situations that the laws are intended to cover.
language has very narrow bandwidth compared to the world, which means that laws can never cover all the situations that the laws are intended to cover.
What if we did this: If a program can detect “natural language words” and encourage humans to re-write until the language is very, very clear, then this could open up the process of lawmaking to the other processing tasks you’re describing, without having to write natural language processing software.
It would also be useful to other fields where computer-processed language would be beneficial. THOSE fields could translate their natural language into language that computers can understand, then process it with a computer.
And if, during the course of using the software, the software is given access to both the “before” text (that it as marked as “natural language, please reword”) AND the “after” text (the precise, machine readable language which the human has changed it to) then one would have the opportunity to use those changes as part of a growing dictionary, from which it translates natural language into readable language on it’s own.
At which point, it would be capable of natural language processing.
I bet there are already projects like this one out there—I know of a few AI projects where they use input from humans to improve the AI like Microsoft’s Milo (ted.com has a TED Talk video on this) but I don’t know if any of them are doing this translation of natural language into machine-readable language, and then back.
Anyway, we seem to have solved the problem of how to get the software to interpret natural language. Here’s the million dollar question:
Would it work, business-wise, to begin with a piece of software that acts as a text editor, is designed to highlight ambiguities and anonymously returns the before and after text to a central database?
If yes, all the rest of this stuff is possible. If no, or if some patent hoarder has taken that idea, then … back to figuring stuff out. (:
An idea from a book called The Death of Common Sense—language has very narrow bandwidth compared to the world, which means that laws can never cover all the situations that the laws are intended to cover.
This is the story of human law.