Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> i18n@... wrote:
> >Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>True fully automatic high-quality machine translation is known to be
> >>impossible (or at least AI-hard), so there's only so high one's hopes
> >>can be set. But at least such things can be convenient in saving you
> >>trips to the dictionary, at least.
> >>
> >>~mark
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Does "AI-hard" mean there is no known algorithm (hence it is an open
> >question)?
> >
> >
> I, at least, mean by it that it is as hard as producing "true"
> artificial intelligence. That is, in order to understand language well
> enough to translate it believably, you essentially have to be working
> with approximately human intelligence and thinking patterns (think Cmdr.
> Data).

I don't know what "Cmdr. Data is. Is it a Star Trek reference?

But I disagree with the premise. Are you equating/confusing machine
translation with a Turing Test?

> Note that I'm not asserting that it is that hard, but reporting a
> proof/assertion by Yehoshua Bar-Hillel that I've heard of. A Google
> search finds me
> for you
> to look at, which discusses it some (I haven't read it all through).

OK, thanks for the link, I will look at that later, don't have time
right this minute

> >I am not so convinced that it will always remain an open issue. I used
> >to be, but I have been working on some approaches I haven't found in the
> >literature, vast and old as it is....
> >
> >
> I'm not sure that fully human-like AI will always remain an open issue
> either.

I guess I was unclear on my antecedents. By "it" I meant "machine
translation. "fully human like AI" is too fuzzy a term to be meaningful
to engineers and/or scientists who would have to design and build it.
(But I wonder if there were a human clone, would that qualify as "fully
human like AI?)