I would think that your conversation with the computer would play a vital role while you were instructing it in the task it is to perform, even if it were a pur

I would think that your conversation with the computer would play a vital role while you were instructing it in the task it is to perform, even if it were a purely one-sided, instructional conversation the computer would still need to acknowledge truthfully whether it had correctly understood the instructions. More likely, the goal of creating such a system would be for it to be capable of engaging in active learning through inquiry but I suppose that would not be absolutely necessary given a specific task. There are also a number of assumptions when approaching problems such as composing a sonnet or assembling furniture. With a human, you assume that they have a broad understanding of the language you are communicating in, that they have some knowledge of poetry even if just in passing, have experienced cadence, rhyme, or other constructs and have prior experience of the world from which to draw 'inspiration'. You also assume that they have seen and used a variety of furniture, tools, and even just generally explored a physical environment to a degree where they are capable of manipulating objects by moving, rotating, stacking, joining, etc. or even as basic as having the concept of object permanence. They must also know all of the relevant nouns and verbs referring to the pieces and tools they will be using. If you continue to think along these lines you very quickly realize that the only reason you can teach a human being something in an hour is because they possess years or decades of previous instruction, programming, and prior learning attempts as well as a data set of visual, aural, tactile, olfactory, and spatial experiences encompassing a similar time frame.