Re: on the strange weakness of Graphical User Interface Languages

George Neuner <gneuner2/@/comcast.net> writes:

I don't know about you, but I don't see any evidence that the
pseudo-sentience of the computers on Star Trek, which can interpret
natural language and automatically generate queries and script
operations based on their understanding of the intent, is anywhere on
the horizon.

It's certainly not here yet, but there are promising efforts, I think.
James Allen at Rochester has been working on mixed-initiative
planning, with a natural language component, for over a decade; his
TRAINS and TRIPS demos from the mid-90s are still pretty impressive.
Eric Horvitz's Bayesian approach to mixed-initiative interaction in
more conventional interfaces is good, too. There some nice work on
programming by demonstration by Dan Oblinger and Larry Bergman at
IBM. . . Inferring user intent is a hard nut to crack.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Liars Paradox
    ... Natural language has ambiguous, nondeterministic, ... context-sensitive semantics by design and intent". ... by saying that that has nothing to do with the Liar Paradox ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Liars Paradox
    ... Natural language has ambiguous, nondeterministic, ... context-sensitive semantics by design and intent". ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Liars Paradox
    ... Natural language has ambiguous, nondeterministic, ... context-sensitive semantics by design and intent. ... The Liar Paradox doesn't have anything specifically to do with ...
    (sci.logic)