> For example, if we are sure that parse A is correct and parse B is incorrect, and we can explain why, perhaps our confidence comes from our ability to explain

> For example, if we are sure that parse A is correct and parse B is incorrect, and we can explain why, perhaps our confidence comes from our ability to explain, and the machine should be trained to produce logical explanations of its decisions. Or perhaps some of us humans have developed a sort of ambiguity detector, because of the likelihood and cost of certain misunderstandings, which triggers a more careful analysis of the grammatical situation, and the model needs something like that to be more human-like (or more like a careful and conscientious communicator, anyway). There are lots of weird phenomena possible here...! Maybe there's a sentence where parse B would never occur to some large group of human listeners, but, once it's explained to them, they tend to change their minds and believe that parse B is, in fact, preferable? (Like being told how to find a camouflaged animal in a photograph, or something?) Maybe there's a sentence where parse B is a great joke or pun? (Presumably this is a really common case.) Maybe there's a sentence where different speaker communities would consistently argue with one another over which one is plausible, totally disagreeing with one another's intuitions? (Maybe due other to far-reaching cultural differences, or something.)