3 ms·

Classic example: The iron ball fell on the glass table, and it shattered. The glass ball fell on the iron table, and it shattered. Human readers will

by aamar 11y ago

Classic example: The iron ball fell on the glass table, and it shattered. The glass ball fell on the iron table, and it shattered. Human readers will pick the correct antecedent for "it" in each case, so it's not ambiguous. But correct interpretation depends on knowing something about how likely glass and iron are to shatter. I love these kinds of examples, but I don't think they ought to significantly deter the kind of work shown here; it depends on the application, but basic interpretation could be very useful even if it can't handle every case.

mrec 11y ago
These are called Winograd Schemas; you can read more about them and see more examples at https://www.cs.nyu.edu/davise/papers/WS.html https://www.cs.nyu.edu/davise/papers/WS.html
oh_sigh 11y ago
For those curious, this process is called "anaphora resolution", which is the process of understanding what a reference(usually a pronoun) actually refers to.
reptation 11y ago
While this is a interesting point, grammarians will bristle at such an imprecise use of 'it', which should unambiguously refer to one antecedent.
- jameshart 11y ago
  Who are these 'grammarians', and why should anyone care what makes them bristle? They evidently have a complete lack of appreciation for the semantic content of sentences and can only see syntax. What a very poor view of language that would be. Professional writers, editors, and teachers of language would be perfectly fine with those sentences, because they understand language as being made up of syntax AND semantics.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - reptation 11y ago
    In the admittedly artificially constructed SAT, the second sentence would seem to be an almost classic example of unacceptable ambiguity. Perhaps in real life, you are correct that the adjectives provide sufficient context.
T-Roy 11y ago
OpenCyc is a really cool implementation of one solution to this problem. The way it was explained to me, computers don't know that when you turn a full cup of coffee upside down, the liquid will fall out. Cyc attempts to provide a framework for that. http://sw.opencyc.org http://sw.opencyc.org
kajecounterhack 11y ago
Yeah, it's a bit of a nitpick over definition of "comprehension" but the program itself is obviously useful, I mean it's a poor man's version of Freebase. Freebase/Google Knowledge Graph doesn't claim to "comprehend" anything, it is just a large graph datastructure with an efficient querying mechanism. That's what this is (...given this is a poor man's version, efficient querying mechanism may be lacking for larger graphs)
- aamar 11y ago
  We don't have to worry about the philosophical questions of comprehension to find cases like this present challenges. These types of example (better articulated in mrec's link) are cases where we can imagine straightforward, plausible queries that the computer would be unable to answer: "what shattered?" or "what remains?" Some of the examples are such that simple web searches wouldn't be helpful in resolving the ambiguity; you'd need some "common knowledge." (Again: not that that's an insurmountable or necessarily relevant problem.)

by aamar 11y ago

mrec 11y ago

These are called Winograd Schemas; you can read more about them and see more examples at https://www.cs.nyu.edu/davise/papers/WS.html https://www.cs.nyu.edu/davise/papers/WS.html

oh_sigh 11y ago

For those curious, this process is called "anaphora resolution", which is the process of understanding what a reference(usually a pronoun) actually refers to.

reptation 11y ago

While this is a interesting point, grammarians will bristle at such an imprecise use of 'it', which should unambiguously refer to one antecedent.

jameshart 11y ago
Who are these 'grammarians', and why should anyone care what makes them bristle? They evidently have a complete lack of appreciation for the semantic content of sentences and can only see syntax. What a very poor view of language that would be. Professional writers, editors, and teachers of language would be perfectly fine with those sentences, because they understand language as being made up of syntax AND semantics.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- reptation 11y ago
  In the admittedly artificially constructed SAT, the second sentence would seem to be an almost classic example of unacceptable ambiguity. Perhaps in real life, you are correct that the adjectives provide sufficient context.

T-Roy 11y ago

OpenCyc is a really cool implementation of one solution to this problem. The way it was explained to me, computers don't know that when you turn a full cup of coffee upside down, the liquid will fall out. Cyc attempts to provide a framework for that. http://sw.opencyc.org http://sw.opencyc.org

kajecounterhack 11y ago

Yeah, it's a bit of a nitpick over definition of "comprehension" but the program itself is obviously useful, I mean it's a poor man's version of Freebase. Freebase/Google Knowledge Graph doesn't claim to "comprehend" anything, it is just a large graph datastructure with an efficient querying mechanism. That's what this is (...given this is a poor man's version, efficient querying mechanism may be lacking for larger graphs)

aamar 11y ago
We don't have to worry about the philosophical questions of comprehension to find cases like this present challenges. These types of example (better articulated in mrec's link) are cases where we can imagine straightforward, plausible queries that the computer would be unable to answer: "what shattered?" or "what remains?" Some of the examples are such that simple web searches wouldn't be helpful in resolving the ambiguity; you'd need some "common knowledge." (Again: not that that's an insurmountable or necessarily relevant problem.)