Topic: Randomly generated text (Read 2066 times)

This is what I think sense is:

A man stood in line at the grocery store while his groceries were scanned. He looked at the boxboy and said: "Could you put all the cold in one bag, and the hot in another." He then paid the cashier in cash and exited the store.

The computer then makes sense of the preceding story by answering the following questions:

1. What are some likely items the man purchased?

2. Given the information in the story, how many people did he interact with while making his purchases?

3. Did the man have less cash on his person upon leaving the supermarket vs. entering the supermarket?

4. What is the minimum number of bags the man exited the market with?

5.  Why did the man make the statement he did to the boxboy?

Sense doesn't just rely on syntax. Sense doesn't just rely on word definitions. Consider the words the man spoke to the boxboy. It isn't even grammatically correct. Yet it makes perfect sense.

This is what happens when sense is employed:

There is less variety than I would want.

You're correct. I wasn't looking at it closely enough. However, I don't understand why sense is unwanted.

But sense is not a goal. To the contrary, sense is unwanted in my endeavours. It ruins the randomness of it.

I'm pretty sure verb inflection is correct, because the computer does it better than I. I'm using standard grammar in my area when I say "a horde of cats consumes cats", because "horde" is singular and that is the subject. I'm aware that Texans, Alabamans, Mississippians, Nevadans, etc. may consider the subject to be plural because it is collective.

Most of these sentences should be using 'consume', not 'consumes'. And as for sentence variety, well...

Are you using Word Net: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/

Bump!

I'm knocking together a generator that makes just as little sense, but has more flexible grammar. So, let's start from the basics:

I haven't worked on the predicates nor the fluff yet (which is why everything seems to consume cats), but this new structure seems to handle the subjects much better, and also boasts more sentence variety. Any English majors here to rip this apart?

Nah, he's trying to socialize. Give him some cred for even trying. 

FTFY!

Schank and Riesbeck also produced a program called TALE-SPIN.

Read pages 199 - 201: http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmps148/Winter10/readings/MeehanTaleSpin.pdf

Automatically Tuned Lame Allocution Software

Please don't fuck with me like that! Imagine NSA spending $2B to build A.T.L.A.S. (acronym for ? -- a secret).


Definitely an A.T.L.A.S. bot!

I found this section to be particularly impressive:

Person: HAD YOU TOUCHED ANY PYRAMID BEFORE YOU PUT THE GREEN ONE ON THE LITTLE CUBE?
Computer: YES, THE GREEN ONE.
Person: WHEN DID YOU PICK IT UP?
Computer: WHILE I WAS STACKING UP THE RED CUBE, A LARGE RED BLOCK AND A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
Person: WHY?
Computer: TO GET RID OF IT.
Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: TO CLEAN OFF THE RED CUBE.
Person: WHY DID YOU CLEAR OFF THAT CUBE?
Computer: TO PUT IT ON A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: TO STACK UP THE RED CUBE , A LARGE RED BLOCK AND A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO.
Person: HOW DID YOU DO IT?
Computer: BY PUTTING A LARGE RED BLOCK ON THE TABLE ; THEN LETTING GO OF IT ; THEN PUTTING A LARGE GREEN CUBE ON IT ; THEN LETTING GO OF THAT CUBE ; THEN PUTTING THE RED CUBE ON THAT CUBE; THEN LETTING GO OF THAT CUBE.
Person: HOW MANY OBJECTS DID YOU TOUCH WHILE YOU WERE DOING IT?
Computer: FOUR OF THEM.
Person: WHAT DID THE RED CUBE SUPPORT BEFORE YOU STARTED TO CLEAN IT OFF?
Computer: THE GREEN PYRAMID.
Person: THERE WERE FIVE BLOCKS TO THE LEFT OF THE BOX THEN.
Computer: NO, ONLY FOUR OF THEM: THE RED CUBE, TWO LARGE GREEN CUBES AND A LARGE RED BLOCK.
Person: PUT THE BLUE PYRAMID ON THE BLOCK IN THE BOX.
Computer: OK. (does it)
Person: IS THERE ANYTHING WHICH IS BIGGER THAN EVERY PYRAMID BUT IS NOT AS WIDE AS THE THING THAT SUPPORTS IT?
Computer: YES, THE BLUE BLOCK.

Now that you say it, Atlas might be one of those top-secret AI programs in the wild. 

Reading this is EXACTLY like reading an Atlas post...

Should call it the Atlas Babblebot...

Manual linebreaks don't work across resolutions.

I've taken a look at the links you all have provided, and give my analysis below:

http://www.essaygenerator.com/:
This generator seems to be tapping words together like my random generator, but replacing one of the words with a topic. IMHO, this gets a little repetitive and can't be considered truly random anymore.

http://www.dominicirving.com/cccbsg/:
This is really awesome. It seems to work by random-generation with a wordlist restricted to a single subject so it can be more bullshit-like. It also sports a lot of sentence structures so the text is never repetitive.

http://hci.stanford.edu/winograd/shrdlu/:
Although not a random text generator (in fact, quite the opposite: this is a AI text producer), I find this really advanced for its year. I'd have to test it more.

http://hci.stanford.edu/winograd/shrdlu/

Read the dialog below all the way through, as it gets pretty amazing the further into it you get.

Taken from the link above, here is a dialog with SHRDLU:

    Person: PICK UP A BIG RED BLOCK.
    Computer: OK. (does it)
    Person: GRASP THE PYRAMID.
    Computer: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHICH PYRAMID YOU MEAN.
    Person: FIND A BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE YOU ARE HOLDING AND PUT IT INTO THE BOX.
    Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE I AM HOLDING.
    Computer: OK. (does it)
    Person: WHAT DOES THE BOX CONTAIN?
    Computer: THE BLUE PYRAMID AND THE BLUE BLOCK.
    Person: WHAT IS THE PYRAMID SUPPORTED BY?
    Computer: THE BOX.
    Person: HOW MANY BLOCKS ARE NOT IN THE BOX?
    Computer: FOUR OF THEM.
    Person: IS AT LEAST ONE OF THEM NARROWER THAN THE ONE WHICH I TOLD YOU TO PICK UP?
    Computer: YES, THE RED CUBE.
    Person: IS IT SUPPORTED?
    Computer: YES, BY THE TABLE.
    Person: CAN THE TABLE PICK UP BLOCKS?
    Computer: NO.
    Person: CAN A PYRAMID BE SUPPORTED BY A BLOCK?
    Computer: YES.
    Person: CAN A PYRAMID SUPPORT A PYRAMID?
    Computer: I DON'T KNOW.
    Person: STACK UP TWO PYRAMIDS.
    Computer: I CAN'T.
    Person: WILL YOU PLEASE STACK UP BOTH OF THE RED BLOCKS AND EITHER A GREEN CUBE OR A PYRAMID?
    Computer: OK. (does it)
    Person: WHICH CUBE IS SITTING ON THE TABLE?
    Computer: THE LARGE GREEN ONE WHICH SUPPORTS THE RED PYRAMID.
    Person: IS THERE A LARGE BLOCK BEHIND A PYRAMID?
    Computer: YES, THREE OF THEM: A LARGE RED ONE, A LARGE GREEN CUBE, AND THE BLUE ONE.
    Person: PUT A SMALL ONE ONTO THE GREEN CUBE WHICH SUPPORTS A PYRAMID.
    Computer: OK. (does it)
    Person: PUT THE LITTLEST PYRAMID ON TOP OF IT.
    Computer: OK. (does it)
    Person: DOES THE SHORTEST THING THE TALLEST PYRAMID'S SUPPORT SUPPORTS SUPPORT ANYTHING GREEN?
    Computer: YES, THE GREEN PYRAMID.
    Person: WHAT COLOR IS IT?
    Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE SHORTEST THING THE TALLEST PYRAMID'S SUPPORT SUPPORTS.
    Computer: RED
    Person: HOW MANY THINGS ARE ON TOP OF GREEN CUBES?
    Computer: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "ON TOP OF "IN THE PHRASE "ON TOP OF GREEN CUBES " .
     DO YOU MEAN:

        1 - DIRECTLY ON THE SURFACE
        2 - ANWHERE ON TOP OF ?

    Person: 2
    Computer: THREE OF THEM.
    Person: HAD YOU TOUCHED ANY PYRAMID BEFORE YOU PUT THE GREEN ONE ON THE LITTLE CUBE?
    Computer: YES, THE GREEN ONE.
    Person: WHEN DID YOU PICK IT UP?
    Computer: WHILE I WAS STACKING UP THE RED CUBE, A LARGE RED BLOCK AND A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
    Person: WHY?
    Computer: TO GET RID OF IT.
    Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
    Computer: TO CLEAN OFF THE RED CUBE.
    Person: WHY DID YOU CLEAR OFF THAT CUBE?
    Computer: TO PUT IT ON A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
    Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
    Computer: TO STACK UP THE RED CUBE , A LARGE RED BLOCK AND A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
    Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
    Computer: BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO.
    Person: HOW DID YOU DO IT?
    Computer: BY PUTTING A LARGE RED BLOCK ON THE TABLE ; THEN LETTING GO OF IT ; THEN PUTTING A LARGE GREEN CUBE ON IT ; THEN LETTING GO OF THAT CUBE ; THEN PUTTING THE RED CUBE ON THAT CUBE; THEN LETTING GO OF THAT CUBE.
    Person: HOW MANY OBJECTS DID YOU TOUCH WHILE YOU WERE DOING IT?
    Computer: FOUR OF THEM.
    Person: WHAT DID THE RED CUBE SUPPORT BEFORE YOU STARTED TO CLEAN IT OFF?
    Computer: THE GREEN PYRAMID.
    Person: THERE WERE FIVE BLOCKS TO THE LEFT OF THE BOX THEN.
    Computer: NO, ONLY FOUR OF THEM: THE RED CUBE, TWO LARGE GREEN CUBES AND A LARGE RED BLOCK.
    Person: PUT THE BLUE PYRAMID ON THE BLOCK IN THE BOX.
    Computer: OK. (does it)
    Person: IS THERE ANYTHING WHICH IS BIGGER THAN EVERY PYRAMID BUT IS NOT AS WIDE AS THE THING THAT SUPPORTS IT?
    Computer: YES, THE BLUE BLOCK.
    Person: DOES A STEEPLE
    Computer interrupting: SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THE WORD "STEEPLE".
    Person: A "STEEPLE" IS A STACK WHICH CONTAINS TWO GREEN CUBES AND A PYRAMID.
    Computer: I UNDERSTAND.
    Person: ARE THERE ANY STEEPLES NOW?
    Computer: NO.
    Person: BUILD ONE.
    Computer: OK. (does it)
    Person: CALL THE BIGGEST BLOCK "SUPERBLOCK".
    Computer: OK.
    Person: HAVE YOU PICKED SUPERBLOCK UP SINCE WE BEGAN?
    Computer: YES.
    Person: WHY DID YOU DROP IT?
    Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE SUPERBLOCK.
     I CAN'T EXPLAIN A NON-EXISTENT EVENT.
    Person: IS THERE ANYTHING TO THE RIGHT OF THE RED PYRAMID?
    Computer: YES, FOUR THINGS: THE BOX , THE RED CUBE, THE BLUE PYRAMID AND THE BLOCK NAMED SUPERBLOCK
    Person: THANK YOU.
    Computer: YOU'RE WELCOME!

From essaygenerator.com:


An essay on Sex and humans
Think back to the first time you ever heard of Sex and humans. Advancments in Sex and humans can be linked to many areas. While it is becoming a hot topic for debate, Sex and humans is not given the credit if deserves for inspiring many of the worlds famous painters. Since it was first compared to antidisestablishmentarianism much has been said concerning Sex and humans by those politicaly minded individuals living in the past, who are likely to form a major stronghold in the inevitable battle for hearts and minds. Complex though it is I shall now attempt to provide an exaustive report on Sex and humans and its numerous 'industries'.

Social Factors

While some scholars have claimed that there is no such thing as society, this is rubbish. When The Tygers of Pan Tang sang 'It's lonely at the top. Everybody's trying to do you in' [1] , they globalised an issue which had remained buried in the hearts of our ancestors for centuries. Difference among people, race, culture and society is essential on the survival of our world, however Sex and humans is quite good.

Of paramount importance to any study of Sex and humans within its context, is understanding the ideals of society. Society is powered by peer pressure, one of the most powerful forces in the world. As long as peer pressure uses its power for good, Sex and humans will have its place in society.

Economic Factors

We no longer live in a world which barters 'I'll give you three cows for that hat, it’s lovely.' Our existance is a generation which cries 'Hat - $20.' We will primarily be focusing on the Lead-a-Duck-to-Water model using the median instead of the mean, where possible.
Transport
Costs   


Sex and humans

Clearly the graphs demonstrates a strong correlation. Why is this? Recent studies indicate that transport costs world wide are driven entirely by Sex and humans. Strong fluctuations in investor confidence have been seen over the past two financial years.

Political Factors

Politics, we all agree, is a fact of life. Looking at the spectrum represented by a single political party can be reminiscent of comparing Sex and humans and political feeling.

In the words of one of the great political analysts Maximilian B. Adger 'You can lead a horse to water, big deal.' [2] He was first introduced to Sex and humans by his mother. It is a well known 'secret' that what prompted many politicians to first strive for power was Sex and humans.

I hope, for our sake that Sex and humans will endure.
Conclusion

To conclude, Sex and humans may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but it's still important. It establishes order, applauds greatness, though Sex and humans brings with it obvious difficulties, it is truly Sex and humans.

What a great essay. Finally a word from super-star Christina Astaire: 'At first I was afraid I was petrified. Thinking I could never live without Sex and humans by my side.'

Interesting parts is highlighted.

Ok, I found the AI programs Schank, Riesbeck, Kolodner, etc. created. Roughly, in order of creation:

SAM
PAM
CYRUS - this is the one that impressed me the most.
IPP
JUDGE
CHEF
SWALE

Edit: Okay, after some googling, I found a good summary of what CYRUS could do. CYRUS would be programmed to have some of the knowledge that an ambassador would have based on reading some articles about political affairs, and then after it was asked questions about what it read, it would answer the questions. The program was tuned, but not in the way you think. It was dumb in a general sense, but the methods it employed were pretty amazing. Read the following synopsis of what CYRUS could do under the heading 'CYRUS' in the link below. In this case, questions are asked about the wife of an Israeli prime minister. I remember reading in detail years ago how CYRUS worked, and it was just fascinating.

Here's the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZK_FHFq3Vk0C&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=cyrus+roger+schank+%22dynamic+memory%22&source=bl&ots=IeJfIJhrFx&sig=yiBm3lIe5HHCPkS5LfK_vsVbO5M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ih5oT6OhG8-JsALXirGdCQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=cyrus%20roger%20schank%20%22dynamic%20memory%22&f=false

Of course, I always found the stuff that came out of Roger Schank and Chris Riesbeck's Yale AI lab twenty and thirty years ago to be the most interesting stuff. Aside from SWALE, I wish I could remember the names of the programs. One of the most amazing ones was one that dealt with articles on political events.

Googling...

Programs which actually say stuff with an underlying meaning are more interesting, even if their domain is limited.

A conversation with SHRDLU, circa 1973: http://hci.stanford.edu/winograd/shrdlu/