Computers Paraphrase English 212
AhaIndia submits a link to a story discussing computerized paraphrasing of English news articles. This technology, destined to eventually replace most reporters with very small shell scripts, is thankfully still in its infancy.
hmm... soudns familiar... (Score:4, Funny)
This shirt? [thinkgeek.com]
Re:hmm... soudns familiar... (Score:2)
Automated slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
So one day instead of complaining against michael and co., everyone will be moaning about someone else's code - seems more appropriate for a nerd site somehow ;)
Re:Automated slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Automated slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but can it manage to use "There are" instead of "There is" with a plural subject?
Actually, the long known solution to most of these *oh so difficult* translation problems is to translate everything into a neutral interlanguage like Interlingua and then translate that into other languages, sending the interlingua version along for the ride, thus preventing degradation in further translations. Then all that local linguists have to concentrate on is ONE set of problems: translating their local language into and out of Interlingua, and Interlingua, being tightly defined, is much easier to machine translate into and out of other languages. So...all this lunacy of trying to machine translate Chinese into English, German, Hungarian, Estonian...--you get the picture--is an incredible waste of time and resources and isn't the best way to solve the problem.
Re:Interlingua, or Lojban? (Score:2)
Re:Automated slashdot? (Score:2, Funny)
I think Michael misspelled 'unfortunately'. But what am I saying...god forbid we have a day when scripts take over Slashdot. Of course, they'd probably program them to dupe and put in random M$-bashing statements.
Re:Automated slashdot? (Score:2)
Interesting use of Technology (Score:2, Troll)
Also if you have Microsoft Word [microsoft.com] lying about there is a feature called Auto-summary which is suprisingly good, amost as effective as going through a document yourself looking for the main points.
Re:Interesting use of Technology (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting use of Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Word Summary (Score:2)
Anyway, here it is:
Now, computers can play along
Computers can't do nearly that well at paraphrasing. Now, using several methods, including statistical techniques borrowed from gene analysis, two researchers have created a program that can automatically generate paraphrases of English sentences.
The program gathers text from online news services on specifi
Re:mod abuse?? (Score:2)
fox_news.sh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:fox_news.sh (Score:5, Funny)
Fair is fair ;)
Re:fox_news.sh (Score:4, Funny)
Except when immediately followed by "and balanced".
Re:fox_news.sh (Score:2)
Re:fox_news.sh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:fox_news.sh (Score:3, Interesting)
I have discovered there are very few people actually collecting news. In many cases I boil a dozen or so stories down to a single quote from the same source, or even funnier, one reporter's misinterpretation of another reporter's work. My favorite is when an american reporter writes that "the bom
Re:bbc_news.sh (Score:2)
Very small shell scripts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Very small shell scripts (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Very small shell scripts (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Very small shell scripts (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Very small shell scripts (Score:2)
But still.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But still.... (Score:2)
Re:But still.... (Score:4, Insightful)
By the time it's printed in the "News" its usually pretty old.
Re:But still.... (Score:2)
It used to be that a reporter was there, got the facts and then got the feeling too. But I guess with all the information these days, there's no way people could do everything. Still, it's just going to seem unhuman when one day a news story is a few lines of XML:
And the "reporter" is just a software program that turns that into a readable "story". Then you can choose how you want the news displayed, with various schema. Like if you're in a good mood, you can put in the happy schema and it doe
Re:But still.... (Score:2)
They don't have to try very hard. I remember a couple of years ago the local news had a shot of a police car that had run into a postal truck. No comment necessary, just ten seconds worth of footage. That image is with me every time I vote.
yr comment's a journalism integrity question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re journalistic integrity - There's the possibility that a single entity could issue the release to the wire services, they could relase it in some kind of 'compiled' form (where it's just the syntax/semantic relations.) (How this could be different from how releases are issued now is a good question, but I guess there'd
Re:But still.... (Score:2)
The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:5, Interesting)
All someone has to do now is marry this technology with a term-paper database, and "Hello Original Work!"
The question will then become, how many different unique "paraphrases" can the system ultimately generate?
Re:The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:3, Interesting)
More stuff to help people avoid shitwork, only for humanity to discover our purpose in life IS to do shitwork.
Re:The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:4, Interesting)
Especially the, 'you're only cheating yourself' one.
Its irrelevant because this will not affect the way we cheat so much as the way we learn and the way we write. Think about it beyond your personal experience in high school.
1. On the micro scale, an autosummerize feature like this will allow someone to take another's essay and put their facts into their own words. But I dont see how this makes any difference to the cheater other than saving him an hour. To see this tech as a problem on this level is to ignore the future.
2. On the medium scale, it will allow someone to take multiple papers, extrapolate all the facts and their sources and then string them together again with their own interpretation. This will allow the learner to come up with a new argument and possibly a fresh insight based on the available information. In this case, it saves the learner a few hours of reading, though he has to do the same amount of thinking and logical reasoning. Is it a shame that the person doesnt have to waste time reading irrelevant information? Still, looking at it on this level is not thinking very deep.
I take history in university and the essays we have to write are done by data mining books. Lots of books. We have to read large amounts of material in as short a time as possible. We have to find out what is important and what is relevant. Am I really learning how to analyze facts? I dont think so. I am learning how to write university papers and theorize based on incomplete information. I am learning how to make a lot of wasted time look like a lot of work.
3. The macro scale. What if every book ever written was replicated in full electronically and available for parsing. What if I could extrapolate every fact from every source even remotely relevant to a topic. I'm right back to where I was before : hours and hours of reading. Yet, my argument will be more solid and my information more complete then it ever could be using the outdated method of data mining: looking in the indexes of books. In this case, what am I learning? I am learning how to think. I am learning how to spot holes, inconsistancies, fallacies, and etc. In this case the technology has eliminated cheating altogether because there is no single source to copy from. And if I want to understand how all these facts are related to each other I either have to think about it or read an other authors interpretation of it. (thus I could still cheat in the classical sense)
4. But lets look at it on one more level, the very tiniest level and the most futuristic. A well constructed paragraph or sentence cant be parsed down, and wouldnt make sense if it was. The facts contained in a paragraph only become important in relation to one another. So in the end, it could just change the way we write. Enough with this puffed up crap, enough with padding your papers - either state whats important or nothing at all. A well constructed essay in the future will be one that cant be "autosummerized" without losing all its intelligability.
Re:The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:2)
Re:you really are only cheating yourself (Score:2)
Re:The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:2)
At that point, teachers ought to be teaching students how to get such software to produce the effect they want on the audience. For that matter, they could try teaching an
Re:The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:2)
Since it's so comfortable one wonders why the baby ever leaves the womb.
Re:The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:2)
Regurgitating boring facts and rote memorization WILL be replaced by technology eventually. A brain-computer interface -- which isn't that far off -- will, in essence, allow some future "Google" to be an extension of your brain's main memory. This still isn't the holy grail, though, because it only decreases access time to huge databases of information, but doesn't do much to decrease the time it takes to fully absorb
Re:The Ultimate Tool For Plagiarism (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability to do research (of known information, at least) has already been changed by technology. Google, PubMed, and other sites make real literature research possible for high school students with just a web browser, and the kind of slogging through printed books that I learned in
Heh (Score:2)
Dupe (Score:5, Informative)
Or Is there?!? [google.com]
School Reports (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Brainstorm some key points/ideas
2) Have this program data mine for relavent articles online
3) Feed sections of each article into the program and have a finished paper
Granted, the tech isn't quite that powerful yet and probably wouldn't do a whole paper, but it sure looks like it could supply several paragraphs of material per page...
Re:School Reports (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I did meet my girlfriend and hopefully future wife in Sophomore English at MTSU. Go figure.
Rethink English ! (Score:4, Informative)
Right now, trying to work with English in computers deals way more with the strangeness of the language than the more interesting issues of cognition that lie underneath.
Re:Rethink English ! (Score:3, Insightful)
One man's informative is another man's troll... Esperanto was interesting and look where it got. Nowhere. People will speak in what's easiest. English is becoming a de facto standard that will continue to be the most spoken language in the world. People won't use odd designed languages because it will be harder than current languages, which got where they are today though iterative refinement to be the best suited language for us to communi
Re:It's globalisation (Re:Rethink English !) (Score:2)
And while we are at it, why not use "f.e." instead of "e.g."?
And why such an irrelevant six-billionth of the whole deserves to be honored by the capital leter ("I")?
I imagine almost every language has redundancy in it's alphabet. In French for example, ce and se would be pronounced the same. Over time this will probably be reduced, as I said, iterative refinement is
Re:Rethink English ! (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true. Computer languages that don't stick close to "regular" human expression are very popular [cloud9.net] and growing quickly. Languages that resemble written English [python.org] are dwindling rapidly.
After all, code is meant to be written, not read [ioccc.org], and programmers should strive to write such that their work can't be understood [unsw.edu.au] by anyone not an expe
Fake literature (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fake literature (Score:2)
Re:Fake literature (Score:2)
Wow, it must take a hugh shell script to turn "Mary wanted the big strong muscle man to solve all of her problems. Henry, the big strong muscle man, was horny. They had unprotected sex. Everything was perfect from then on."
Imagine what that could to to a Hello World program.
LK
Or games... (Score:3, Funny)
Reference (Score:2)
I know I heard this phrase (loosely) before, but does someone know the name of the reference?
Re:Reference (Score:2)
At ThinkGeek [thinkgeek.com] perhaps?
Or one of myriads of signatures quoting this?
Regards,
--
*Art
Replace reporters?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Replace reporters?? (Score:2)
We know we will be in trouble when every commentary article begines with "I am thinking that..."
Re:Replace reporters?? (Score:2)
Something similiar existed on the Amiga (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm assuming this (Of course I didn't RTFA) is far more advanced than what we had back then, but the idea for this has been around for quite a while at least...
Possible outcome of computerized paraphrasing (Score:2, Funny)
Do you know what reporters DO? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an ex-reporter and editor, I find it laughable that anyone might think this technology will replace reporters. It's sort of like suggesting that machines that can read source code and interpret it can somehow figure out what new software people want and then write it. Both possibilities are equally insane.
Maybe you're not sure what linguists do... (Score:2, Insightful)
to wit, there are attributes of register, tone, and modality that can be applied not just to individual sentences, but to entire pieces of text that may be able to indicate a
Re:Maybe you're not sure what linguists do... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's theoretically possible that an editor could be replaced in some instances by software, but not the reporter. The reporter doesn't have anything to start with -- no sentences for software to analyze. A reporter normally starts with some vague thing like a source in the city clerk's office telling him that some bogus expenditures are being put into the sanitation department budget for next year, but nobody really knows what's
Re:Maybe you're not sure what linguists do... (Score:2)
Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.
AI and IA is an inevitability in our lifetime as long as ancient exponential trends [kurzweilai.net] continue on track.
--
Re:Maybe none of are sure what Ashcroft does... (Score:2)
Re:Do you know what reporters DO? (Score:2)
Re:Do you know what reporters DO? (Score:2)
This is Michael, Hemos, and Taco we're talking about. What kind of dumbass question is that?!
Of *COURSE* they don't know. Heh, even avoiding dupes, spellcheck and fact checking are alien concepts...
Re:Do you know what reporters DO? (Score:3, Interesting)
With this technology, ALL of the stories could be reported.
"which are the relevant facts about a story"
odd, I myself get very pissed about reporters who don't give ALL the facts. If you mean summarizing, that is EXACTLY what this is supposed to do.
"who's lying and who's telling the truth about a story"
That's for the reader to decide. A reporter who makes judgements concerning what they are reporting and expresses their view of the subject is a bad one. At least in
Re:Do you know what reporters DO? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you want to report what is on the menu at every restaurant in town every day? What about an attendance list of who made it to school at every school in town? What about the results of every medic
Re:Do you know what reporters DO? (Score:3)
Pair of phrase (Score:2)
Someone must research a story . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
The people who take this copy off the wire and paraphrase it for publication in the local paper are called copy writers.
This software will reduce the number of copy writers needed, not reporters.
This is certainly an issue to the copy writers and their families, but overall it's really just a blue collar worker being replaced by a robot issue.
The idea of a 'style dial' I find a bit more disturbing.
KFG
Re:Someone must research a story . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Man, I gotta find the preferences checkbox for that stuff!
Re:Someone must research a story . . . (Score:2)
Just license your content from The New York Times, and you can lay off both copy writers and reports.
(You can use Google [google.com] to watch how many online news sites republish this story.)
Generation isn't that easy (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, most language models cannot generate even a large portion of English text. Those that do have a good range rarely have good accuracy, because there are many things that we "just don't say that way." This is why when you're talking to a non-native speaker, you often cannot explain why something they said was wrong. This is because there is no real grammar rule against speaking in a given way.
So if we rule out syntax-based models, that just leaves statistical-based models. I worked in a NLP lab during the summer of 2002, and my prof there said that syntax and statistics are like the two sides of the force. Statistics are quick and easy but are seductive. They corrupt you and leave you unable to really think about the language itself. You only think in terms of bigrams and HMMs.
So even though these systems are doing well, they are mostly statistical. Thus, it's hard to get incremental improvement. You have to have larger corpora, and larger corpora usually have more errors, thus defeating any advantage you might get by capturing more aspects of a language.
In my opinion, only with well-developed language models that can effectively generate NL can we get anywhere. Which is what Barzilay is working on, but it's still a long, long, long way off.
The article, summarized by MacOS X (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The article, summarized by MacOS X (Score:2)
Re:The article, summarized by MacOS X (Score:2)
Hardly news... (Score:4, Informative)
OK, nothing else to see here, move on to the next redundant post (Is that paraphrasing 'dupe'?)
well... (Score:2)
Obligatory link (Score:2)
Bring on the Machines (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course the time will come when machines summarize articles, and I believe I have seen where this has already been tried with mixed success. It would be kind of neat to see /. use both a summary engine and a paraphrase engine on
submitted articles. Then we could have 3 article descriptions: the posters description; a machine summary of the same article; and a machine paraphrase of the original posters summary.
Paraphrase (Score:2, Insightful)
It won't replace original works, but it could help reduce a lot of extraneous data on the web
Re:Paraphrase (Score:2)
Typical /. story.. maybe they need the engine? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously this is a developing field. The best models seem to use phrases from the original text, anyway the Mac OSX example above shows that it is useful to users willing to take it with a massive grain of salt, even if we are not into full computational sentience yet.
When it works even a little better it will replace all those awful grade school teachers who assign paraphrasing as a homework assignment. The reporters who might have been replaced by it will have already lost their jobs, except for the ones in AhaIndia of course who will paraphrase for the rest of us, usually at a marginally better level than the machine.
The research is interesting - and I'd like to understand Barzilay's notation is that APL or calculus of statement? - in the paper (pdf) [jhu.edu] I found on google. Also see the papers on her site [mit.edu].
Of course structured text is easier, and news stories are known to have most of the meat in the beginning, but this is great stuff.
One interesting older system is ThoughtTreasure [signiform.com] which was built to understand a story and answer questions about it. The author also did work on news analysis ("NewsForms") too. There are tools out there, I've been making a survey myself too. If anyone has information about practical NLP tools for real world tasks please post.
It's unlikely to catch on... (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem is that languages, especially English, are so idiomatic that mechanical translators will be a too much of a disadvantage - take the Babelfish [altavista.com] translator for instance.
Furthermore, the English language is so flexible that just about any word can arbitrarily substitute for anything else - for instance, take 'bad' meaning 'good'.
It would be impossible to program a machine to be able to understand the full spectrum of idiomatic phrases but the future may lie in employing neural net technologies so that computers can do some limited learning. [cornell.edu]
Columbia News Blaster (Score:3, Informative)
Here is a quote from their site:
Columbia Newsblaster is a system to automatically track the day's news. There are no human editors involved -- everything you see on the main page is generated automatically, drawing on the sources listed on the left side of the screen.
Every night, the system crawls a series of Web sites, downloads articles, groups them together into "clusters" about the same topic, and summarizes each cluster. The end result is a Web page that gives you a sense of what the major stories of the day are, so you don't have to visit the pages of dozens of publications.
Newsblaster is an academic project from the Natural Language Processing group at Columbia University's Department of Computer Science. It is designed to demonstrate the Group's technologies for multidocument summarization, clustering, and text categorization, among others. It is funded under DARPA TIDES and KDD and has been operational online since September 2001.
Current and future enhancements include international perspectives, multilingual capability, and tracking events across days.
Re:Columbia News Blaster (Score:2)
Creativity (Score:2)
I'm a sexist, so what? (Score:3, Funny)
The researchers, Regina Barzilay, an assistant professor in the department of electrical engineering and computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Lillian Lee, an associate professor of computer science at Cornell University, said that while the program would not yield paraphrases as zany as those in the Monty Python sketch, it is fairly adept at rewording the flat cadences of news service prose.
Two women came up with this! Why doesn't it surprise me in the least that women are officially researching ways to automate the process of saying the exact same thing in an infinite number of different ways?
LK
Hollywood (Score:2)
Television uses this system, too. The formula there seems to also involve borrowing a successful British TV show's concept, just to keep things a little fresher.
Re: (Score:2)
Old news! (Score:2)
-
Wake me up when... (Score:3, Funny)
*WHEW* - Still in infancy (Score:2)
Well, at least Slashdot will always be biased, thank god for that.
I used the OS X Summarize function... (Score:2)
Re:Nice ad... (Score:1)
Re:Nice ad... (Score:1)
"A month or so later we were Slashdotted. And promptly thereafter ThinkGeek was acquired by the good folks at Andover.Net who have since been acquired by the great folks at VA Software. Andover.Net then became OSDN which is the central entry point for the Open Source community's favorite web sites such as ThinkGeek (hey that's us!), slashdot.org, linux.com, sourceforge.net, and freshmeat.net. Pretty nice company to be amongst, eh? We're
Re:DUPE (Score:2, Funny)
~~~