Standards in Artificial Intelligence

[JXStern]

Trhee is, hvoewer, a pebrolm wtih rnonimaisdg the mddile lrtetes of ecah
wrod; you ibvarlaniy docseivr taht, ahtgluoh sorht wrdos are rltveaiely
smiple to prase, an ieertnnitsg and iiomftarvne Ueesnt alitcre will oeftn
cniaton much loengr words that are iaomnpalbcry mroe diilfufct to
dnagesnitle when you are perensted wtih cerrcot oeirndrg olny for the first
and last letrets of ecah wrod. As you mgiht be albe to dmnteiere from
ranedig this atclire, the aonmut of effort reriequd to tnalatrse a wrod
iranseces ditraalcamly wtih wrod ltngeh. Any wrod up to about fvie ltrtees
is slmpie eogunh, but the dltcufifiy isnrceeas srlpahy wtih the ceimpoxtly
of the ipnut. Three is no spimle sbtsuuttie for cearful, cercrot,
wtlirtew-len Esglinh. Tehre is no slveir beullt.

Hmm, them longer words ain't quite so easy.

J.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

Mark Browne wrote:



Trhee is, hvoewer, a pebrolm wtih rnonimaisdg the mddile lrtetes of ecah
wrod; you ibvarlaniy docseivr taht, ahtgluoh sorht wrdos are rltveaiely
smiple to prase, an ieertnnitsg and iiomftarvne Ueesnt alitcre will oeftn
cniaton much loengr words that are iaomnpalbcry mroe diilfufct to
dnagesnitle when you are perensted wtih cerrcot oeirndrg olny for the first
and last letrets of ecah wrod. As you mgiht be albe to dmnteiere from
ranedig this atclire, the aonmut of effort reriequd to tnalatrse a wrod
iranseces ditraalcamly wtih wrod ltngeh. Any wrod up to about fvie ltrtees
is slmpie eogunh, but the dltcufifiy isnrceeas srlpahy wtih the ceimpoxtly
of the ipnut. Three is no spimle sbtsuuttie for cearful, cercrot,
wtlirtew-len Esglinh. Tehre is no slveir beullt.

Still fairly readable. Stopped twice to think about a word, had to
re-read a couple of bits, but still picked up the gist of the message on
the first pass. If I go back and read it through again I have no
problems. Will be interesting to see if that's true 20 minutes from now
when I've purged my short-term memory

 

[Dragan Cvetkovic]

It took me several seconds to figure that out, mostly because I was hung up
on the fact that it didn't make any sense at all. Perhaps if the
unscrambled sentence made some sort of sense it'd be easier to read.

It was not my sentence. I just copied it from
http://groups.google.ca/[email protected]


[snip]

Also, your program stripped other information that was important to the way
the text is perceived... namely punctuation. Why was that?

It's not my program. Besides, as far as I know, it stripped one '.' (but
there is O afterwards giving a strong clue ) and it stripped two '?' at the
end of the second sentence.


Bye, Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

 

[Dean Kent]

Face it. You are all closet dyslexics.

Regards,
Dean

PS. Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!

 

[Nick Maclaren]

|>
|> > Yes. As has been posted before, by me and others, the design of user
|> > interfaces to be robust against human error is a sadly neglected art.
|> > I can witness that we spent some time on it when redesigning the
|> > Phoenix user interface, and people have posted that the same was true
|> > of Multics. The less said about this aspect in the context of Unix,
|> > almost all GUIs and Microsoft systems, the better :-(
|>
|> Have you tried Mac OS X? I find the UI to be quite good. It's so good
|> that it spoils me when I have to go and use other things.

No, I haven't used Macintoshes in decades, and minimally then. But
I agree that they were a rare exception to the near-complete absence
of ergonomic design in GUIs.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Alexis Cousein]

I suspect this should be `confirmed' or `invalidated'.

Invalidated. I translated the Dutch to another language, but not
English, and then Anglicized the result. All without thinking about it
.

But you're right, the result is exceptionally ugly. Should've
piped it to a Cmabrigde Uinervtisy rscheearch filter first to hide my
tracks somewhat.

 

[Alexis Cousein]

Tehre is no slveir beullt.

No, but I'm not sure it's not a sliver bullet (as in the thinggummie
that hurts when it lodges itself under your skin) .

 

[Sander Vesik]

Trhee is, hvoewer, a pebrolm wtih rnonimaisdg the mddile lrtetes of ecah
wrod; you ibvarlaniy docseivr taht, ahtgluoh sorht wrdos are rltveaiely
smiple to prase, an ieertnnitsg and iiomftarvne Ueesnt alitcre will oeftn
cniaton much loengr words that are iaomnpalbcry mroe diilfufct to
dnagesnitle when you are perensted wtih cerrcot oeirndrg olny for the first
and last letrets of ecah wrod. As you mgiht be albe to dmnteiere from
ranedig this atclire, the aonmut of effort reriequd to tnalatrse a wrod
iranseces ditraalcamly wtih wrod ltngeh. Any wrod up to about fvie ltrtees
is slmpie eogunh, but the dltcufifiy isnrceeas srlpahy wtih the ceimpoxtly
of the ipnut. Three is no spimle sbtsuuttie for cearful, cercrot,
wtlirtew-len Esglinh. Tehre is no slveir beullt.

Its still readable though - ok, it takes slightly longer and slightly more
effort (then again, I'm not a good metric as to if/how this applies to native
speakers), but its readable. It *would* become annoying fast if you had
to read such a lot. But teh effort isn't significantly larger.

 

[Robert Myers]

Trhee is, hvoewer, a pebrolm wtih rnonimaisdg the mddile lrtetes of ecah
wrod; you ibvarlaniy docseivr taht, ahtgluoh sorht wrdos are rltveaiely
smiple to prase, an ieertnnitsg and iiomftarvne Ueesnt alitcre will oeftn
cniaton much loengr words that are iaomnpalbcry mroe diilfufct to
dnagesnitle when you are perensted wtih cerrcot oeirndrg olny for the first
and last letrets of ecah wrod. As you mgiht be albe to dmnteiere from
ranedig this atclire, the aonmut of effort reriequd to tnalatrse a wrod
iranseces ditraalcamly wtih wrod ltngeh. Any wrod up to about fvie ltrtees
is slmpie eogunh, but the dltcufifiy isnrceeas srlpahy wtih the ceimpoxtly
of the ipnut.

On the other hand, producing such mangled text requires effort, and
the random errors made by dyslexic typists are almost always easy to
undo mentally.

Three is no spimle sbtsuuttie for cearful, cercrot,
wtlirtew-len Esglinh.

Emphatically agreed, but I don't think that careful, correct, and
well-written English has much to do with the kinds of errors that
proofreaders look for.

The most common sin among comp.arch posters, from my point of view, is
that they post the way my dentist talks to his assistant--in
jargon-laden shorthand that has the effect of limiting the usefulness
of the communication to those who already understand the situation,
anyway.

RM

 

[Richard Heathfield]

On the other hand, producing such mangled text requires effort,

A few extra characters, that's all:

cat plain | ./mixem -r > mixedup

and
the random errors made by dyslexic typists are almost always easy to
undo mentally.

I have encountered few genuine dyslexics, but I have rarely had problems
understand the text they generate. As you say, it's no big deal.

Emphatically agreed, but I don't think that careful, correct, and
well-written English has much to do with the kinds of errors that
proofreaders look for.

Poofreaders aren't as effective as once they were, IMHO.

The most common sin among comp.arch posters, from my point of view, is
that they post the way my dentist talks to his assistant--in
jargon-laden shorthand that has the effect of limiting the usefulness
of the communication to those who already understand the situation,
anyway.

In my "home" newsgroup, it's more the other way - people more or less spell
out every single little nuance of meaning, every single time, lest they be
chastised for seeming to mislead, even when everyone in the thread knows
damn well what they mean.

 

[Justin Bischoff]

Just a little counter example.


"Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd,
utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the
ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs
araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr."


As demonstrated, a simple inversion of the internal characters results in a
text which is relatively hard to decipher."

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Jitsun Bfohcsif wtore:

["cetnuor-elpmaxe"]

I'd better fix the topys and sgnarte wrod ceciohs...

"Anidroccg to crad-cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd
utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of
the rcraeseh aetubirttd to rrehcraeses at Cgdirbmae, a slpmie macinahcel
ioisrevnn of the ianretnl lrettes of ecah wrod in a ppargarah araepps
sneiciffut to csufnoe the agareve redaer -- but not all taht mcuh."

-Auhtrr

 

[JXStern]

Just a little counter example.

"Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd,
utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the
ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs
araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr."

As demonstrated, a simple inversion of the internal characters results in a
text which is relatively hard to decipher."

Can you say why -- it is letter-pair frequencies, or distance-metric
to the ungarbled language, or wot?

J.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

It was not my sentence. I just copied it from
http://groups.google.ca/[email protected]

Ah. Doesn't make sense there either :>

[snip]

Also, your program stripped other information that was important to the way
the text is perceived... namely punctuation. Why was that?

It's not my program. Besides, as far as I know, it stripped one '.' (but
there is O afterwards giving a strong clue ) and it stripped two '?' at the
end of the second sentence.

Looking at that post, all of the punctuation is intact. So your quoting
was at fault for removing the punctuation - two commas, a period and
some question marks (three as it happens - although one would have been
enough). The punctuation /might/ have helped break the sentences up
into readily-parsable units, or at least hint at the sentence flow. But
since there is so much wrong with the sentence structure it probably
wouldn't have helped significantly.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

Face it. You are all closet dyslexics.

Or perahps we've all jsut gotetn used to reading tpyos :>

BTW: Why is dyslexic such a hard word to spell? Is this some kind of a
test??

 

[Bernd Paysan]

Just a little counter example.


"Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd,
utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the
ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs
araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr."


As demonstrated, a simple inversion of the internal characters results in
a text which is relatively hard to decipher."

The mian porblem with this txet is that it mveos aornud the lettres whcih
stcik up and dwon form the bsaelnie. Tihs is waht hruts raedability; wrods
raelly are raed by shape, i.e. things sticknig out abvoe and bolew, and
nmuber of storkes in betewen. That's why miuncsules wrok so mcuh better.

 

[Rotes Sapiens]

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can
be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is
bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the
wrod as a wlohe.

Something for fellow AI bums to think about ...

How does "your" proposed AI handle this?

A soundex subroutine would be a good start.


Sig:
Westheimer's Discovery: A couple of months in the laboratory can save a
couple of hours in the library. -Frank H. Westheimer, chemistry professor
(1912- )