Randomly generated text

[dree12]

Recently, I've been playing around with computer-generated text. Not intelligently like cleverbot et al., but rather that of the lowest lifeform possible: randomly. Okay, actually pseudorandomly, but close enough.

Basically, I've got a script processing a couple templates and wordlists and putting them together (in a hopefully coherent manner). Unfortunately, English doesn't always work out so well, creating constructs similar to "very without" and the type.

To demonstrate it's current (very basic) level of "knowledge" (as in; wordlists and templates), here are a few sample paragraphs (not cherry-picked, these are right out of the box):

Code:

Furthermore, diverse, extremely quirky, and bemused pencils to the left of entirely mammoth pencils originally transfer kayaks. Xylophones fond of deer walk inside the very overstated thief; kangaroos indubiously feed the photograph devoid of blue, completely descriptive, and scattered blocks. The group of completely broad, forest-producing buffalo maintains that lice enrich utilities. Certainly, a writer consumes an especially original, rather natural, and bemused outfit. The completely broad, canine, and sign-seeing committee brings a deviation; however, especially circular elephants rarely take a piano on the stone.

However, a human therefore consumes a library-forging, additionally distant pyramid beside unfortunately miniature, orange pencils. Always, crooked, mouse-burning businesses without slowly ancient, originally uninteresting matrices walk far from a microwave. Rabbits fond of zebras claim axis-ingesting, calculator-growing, and noticeably ancient xylophones, and the galley illustrates that women transfer moose. Nevertheless, axes fond of kangaroos require utilities almost devoid of criteria. Rarely, the astonishingly traditional, extremely enormous, and partner-constructing narwhal devoid of arbitration-invading cities evacuates a boundary. Although afterthoughts unfortunately claim groups of octopodes, artificial, rarely broad, and nearly jagged servers very fond of afternoons send feet extremely devoid of actions.

Wren-consuming, astonishingly vague, and orange buffalo near acute servers visibly transfer the mob of servers; moose feed always flat, very descriptive, and taiga-inhaling salmon extremely devoid of small, human-eating, and institution-ingesting platypodes. Although circle-constructing, visibly glacial jungles walk to formulae, axes near branches take glacier-invading phenomena. As appliances certainly send sometimes positive rabbits very fond of slowly autumnal, almost jagged activities, men far from the exotic, extremely remote, and decayed deposition run to the right of a steep, geyser-consuming, and certainly considerable belief.

Arbitrators over actions listen to a swarms of afterthoughts; however, couples of certainly square, small, and zebra-consuming cats calculate that boundaries enrich formulae. The glacier almost devoid of appliances deduces that mice distribute beliefs; therefore, collections of bartenders walk on arbitrations. Furthermore, the very miniature, completely limited, and rather useless volcano writes a very uninteresting, always artificial, and steep newspaper. Visibly, the outfit devoid of cats forges women. A vivid, large, and especially autumnal notification hears reluctantly round platypodes; servers point out that businesses transfer xylophones. As Rel Benea said, "the rather gigantic, afterthought-eating, and crystal-eating belief especially fond of cats constructs a store".

Moreover, a kangaroo inhales white teeth. Salmon inside the person walk to the left of colossal, repeatedly colossal, and especially detailed cats, but the theft goes to alpaca. Furthermore, an astonishingly artificial mouse devises a zebra. Series of branches react to the left of a galley, and the swarms of repeatedly frosty, especially crooked cabbages talks under weapons. The book therefore moves the somewhat proximate, especially organized kangaroo.

This is where I want to experiment more in-depth with language; after exausting the basic concepts I've realized that I'm not a linguist. Wikipedia's many in-depth articles on language are coherent but not immediately obviously templatified. As such, I've decided to expose this mini-project to the Bitcointalk community (or at least the subset that reads Off-Topic). Any comments would do.

P.S.: I've noticed the code block doesn't scroll, but I don't want it to be a wall of text. Please just copy and paste it into a word processor to read better.

[rjk]

P.S.: I've noticed the code block doesn't scroll, but I don't want it to be a wall of text. Please just copy and paste it into a word processor to read better.

Add manual linebreaks, it will start to scroll eventually. Also, http://www.dominicirving.com/cccbsg/ and http://www.essaygenerator.com/

[FirstAscent]

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/

[FirstAscent]

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...

[FirstAscent]

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

[John (John K.)]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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!

[dree12]

P.S.: I've noticed the code block doesn't scroll, but I don't want it to be a wall of text. Please just copy and paste it into a word processor to read better.

Add manual linebreaks, it will start to scroll eventually. Also, http://www.dominicirving.com/cccbsg/ and http://www.essaygenerator.com/

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.

[teflone]

Recently, I've been playing around with computer-generated text. Not intelligently like cleverbot et al., but rather that of the lowest lifeform possible: randomly. Okay, actually pseudorandomly, but close enough.

Basically, I've got a script processing a couple templates and wordlists and putting them together (in a hopefully coherent manner). Unfortunately, English doesn't always work out so well, creating constructs similar to "very without" and the type.

To demonstrate it's current (very basic) level of "knowledge" (as in; wordlists and templates), here are a few sample paragraphs (not cherry-picked, these are right out of the box):

Code:

Furthermore, diverse, extremely quirky, and bemused pencils to the left of entirely mammoth pencils originally transfer kayaks. Xylophones fond of deer walk inside the very overstated thief; kangaroos indubiously feed the photograph devoid of blue, completely descriptive, and scattered blocks. The group of completely broad, forest-producing buffalo maintains that lice enrich utilities. Certainly, a writer consumes an especially original, rather natural, and bemused outfit. The completely broad, canine, and sign-seeing committee brings a deviation; however, especially circular elephants rarely take a piano on the stone.

However, a human therefore consumes a library-forging, additionally distant pyramid beside unfortunately miniature, orange pencils. Always, crooked, mouse-burning businesses without slowly ancient, originally uninteresting matrices walk far from a microwave. Rabbits fond of zebras claim axis-ingesting, calculator-growing, and noticeably ancient xylophones, and the galley illustrates that women transfer moose. Nevertheless, axes fond of kangaroos require utilities almost devoid of criteria. Rarely, the astonishingly traditional, extremely enormous, and partner-constructing narwhal devoid of arbitration-invading cities evacuates a boundary. Although afterthoughts unfortunately claim groups of octopodes, artificial, rarely broad, and nearly jagged servers very fond of afternoons send feet extremely devoid of actions.

Wren-consuming, astonishingly vague, and orange buffalo near acute servers visibly transfer the mob of servers; moose feed always flat, very descriptive, and taiga-inhaling salmon extremely devoid of small, human-eating, and institution-ingesting platypodes. Although circle-constructing, visibly glacial jungles walk to formulae, axes near branches take glacier-invading phenomena. As appliances certainly send sometimes positive rabbits very fond of slowly autumnal, almost jagged activities, men far from the exotic, extremely remote, and decayed deposition run to the right of a steep, geyser-consuming, and certainly considerable belief.

Arbitrators over actions listen to a swarms of afterthoughts; however, couples of certainly square, small, and zebra-consuming cats calculate that boundaries enrich formulae. The glacier almost devoid of appliances deduces that mice distribute beliefs; therefore, collections of bartenders walk on arbitrations. Furthermore, the very miniature, completely limited, and rather useless volcano writes a very uninteresting, always artificial, and steep newspaper. Visibly, the outfit devoid of cats forges women. A vivid, large, and especially autumnal notification hears reluctantly round platypodes; servers point out that businesses transfer xylophones. As Rel Benea said, "the rather gigantic, afterthought-eating, and crystal-eating belief especially fond of cats constructs a store".

Moreover, a kangaroo inhales white teeth. Salmon inside the person walk to the left of colossal, repeatedly colossal, and especially detailed cats, but the theft goes to alpaca. Furthermore, an astonishingly artificial mouse devises a zebra. Series of branches react to the left of a galley, and the swarms of repeatedly frosty, especially crooked cabbages talks under weapons. The book therefore moves the somewhat proximate, especially organized kangaroo.

This is where I want to experiment more in-depth with language; after exausting the basic concepts I've realized that I'm not a linguist. Wikipedia's many in-depth articles on language are coherent but not immediately obviously templatified. As such, I've decided to expose this mini-project to the Bitcointalk community (or at least the subset that reads Off-Topic). Any comments would do.

P.S.: I've noticed the code block doesn't scroll, but I don't want it to be a wall of text. Please just copy and paste it into a word processor to read better.

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

Should call it the Atlas Babblebot...

[John (John K.)]

Recently, I've been playing around with computer-generated text. Not intelligently like cleverbot et al., but rather that of the lowest lifeform possible: randomly. Okay, actually pseudorandomly, but close enough.

Basically, I've got a script processing a couple templates and wordlists and putting them together (in a hopefully coherent manner). Unfortunately, English doesn't always work out so well, creating constructs similar to "very without" and the type.

To demonstrate it's current (very basic) level of "knowledge" (as in; wordlists and templates), here are a few sample paragraphs (not cherry-picked, these are right out of the box):

Code:

Furthermore, diverse, extremely quirky, and bemused pencils to the left of entirely mammoth pencils originally transfer kayaks. Xylophones fond of deer walk inside the very overstated thief; kangaroos indubiously feed the photograph devoid of blue, completely descriptive, and scattered blocks. The group of completely broad, forest-producing buffalo maintains that lice enrich utilities. Certainly, a writer consumes an especially original, rather natural, and bemused outfit. The completely broad, canine, and sign-seeing committee brings a deviation; however, especially circular elephants rarely take a piano on the stone.

However, a human therefore consumes a library-forging, additionally distant pyramid beside unfortunately miniature, orange pencils. Always, crooked, mouse-burning businesses without slowly ancient, originally uninteresting matrices walk far from a microwave. Rabbits fond of zebras claim axis-ingesting, calculator-growing, and noticeably ancient xylophones, and the galley illustrates that women transfer moose. Nevertheless, axes fond of kangaroos require utilities almost devoid of criteria. Rarely, the astonishingly traditional, extremely enormous, and partner-constructing narwhal devoid of arbitration-invading cities evacuates a boundary. Although afterthoughts unfortunately claim groups of octopodes, artificial, rarely broad, and nearly jagged servers very fond of afternoons send feet extremely devoid of actions.

Wren-consuming, astonishingly vague, and orange buffalo near acute servers visibly transfer the mob of servers; moose feed always flat, very descriptive, and taiga-inhaling salmon extremely devoid of small, human-eating, and institution-ingesting platypodes. Although circle-constructing, visibly glacial jungles walk to formulae, axes near branches take glacier-invading phenomena. As appliances certainly send sometimes positive rabbits very fond of slowly autumnal, almost jagged activities, men far from the exotic, extremely remote, and decayed deposition run to the right of a steep, geyser-consuming, and certainly considerable belief.

Arbitrators over actions listen to a swarms of afterthoughts; however, couples of certainly square, small, and zebra-consuming cats calculate that boundaries enrich formulae. The glacier almost devoid of appliances deduces that mice distribute beliefs; therefore, collections of bartenders walk on arbitrations. Furthermore, the very miniature, completely limited, and rather useless volcano writes a very uninteresting, always artificial, and steep newspaper. Visibly, the outfit devoid of cats forges women. A vivid, large, and especially autumnal notification hears reluctantly round platypodes; servers point out that businesses transfer xylophones. As Rel Benea said, "the rather gigantic, afterthought-eating, and crystal-eating belief especially fond of cats constructs a store".

Moreover, a kangaroo inhales white teeth. Salmon inside the person walk to the left of colossal, repeatedly colossal, and especially detailed cats, but the theft goes to alpaca. Furthermore, an astonishingly artificial mouse devises a zebra. Series of branches react to the left of a galley, and the swarms of repeatedly frosty, especially crooked cabbages talks under weapons. The book therefore moves the somewhat proximate, especially organized kangaroo.

This is where I want to experiment more in-depth with language; after exausting the basic concepts I've realized that I'm not a linguist. Wikipedia's many in-depth articles on language are coherent but not immediately obviously templatified. As such, I've decided to expose this mini-project to the Bitcointalk community (or at least the subset that reads Off-Topic). Any comments would do.

P.S.: I've noticed the code block doesn't scroll, but I don't want it to be a wall of text. Please just copy and paste it into a word processor to read better.

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

Should call it the Atlas Babblebot...

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

[FirstAscent]

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.

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.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Recently, I've been playing around with computer-generated text. Not intelligently like cleverbot et al., but rather that of the lowest lifeform possible: randomly. Okay, actually pseudorandomly, but close enough.

Basically, I've got a script processing a couple templates and wordlists and putting them together (in a hopefully coherent manner). Unfortunately, English doesn't always work out so well, creating constructs similar to "very without" and the type.

To demonstrate it's current (very basic) level of "knowledge" (as in; wordlists and templates), here are a few sample paragraphs (not cherry-picked, these are right out of the box):

Code:

Furthermore, diverse, extremely quirky, and bemused pencils to the left of entirely mammoth pencils originally transfer kayaks. Xylophones fond of deer walk inside the very overstated thief; kangaroos indubiously feed the photograph devoid of blue, completely descriptive, and scattered blocks. The group of completely broad, forest-producing buffalo maintains that lice enrich utilities. Certainly, a writer consumes an especially original, rather natural, and bemused outfit. The completely broad, canine, and sign-seeing committee brings a deviation; however, especially circular elephants rarely take a piano on the stone.

However, a human therefore consumes a library-forging, additionally distant pyramid beside unfortunately miniature, orange pencils. Always, crooked, mouse-burning businesses without slowly ancient, originally uninteresting matrices walk far from a microwave. Rabbits fond of zebras claim axis-ingesting, calculator-growing, and noticeably ancient xylophones, and the galley illustrates that women transfer moose. Nevertheless, axes fond of kangaroos require utilities almost devoid of criteria. Rarely, the astonishingly traditional, extremely enormous, and partner-constructing narwhal devoid of arbitration-invading cities evacuates a boundary. Although afterthoughts unfortunately claim groups of octopodes, artificial, rarely broad, and nearly jagged servers very fond of afternoons send feet extremely devoid of actions.

Wren-consuming, astonishingly vague, and orange buffalo near acute servers visibly transfer the mob of servers; moose feed always flat, very descriptive, and taiga-inhaling salmon extremely devoid of small, human-eating, and institution-ingesting platypodes. Although circle-constructing, visibly glacial jungles walk to formulae, axes near branches take glacier-invading phenomena. As appliances certainly send sometimes positive rabbits very fond of slowly autumnal, almost jagged activities, men far from the exotic, extremely remote, and decayed deposition run to the right of a steep, geyser-consuming, and certainly considerable belief.

Arbitrators over actions listen to a swarms of afterthoughts; however, couples of certainly square, small, and zebra-consuming cats calculate that boundaries enrich formulae. The glacier almost devoid of appliances deduces that mice distribute beliefs; therefore, collections of bartenders walk on arbitrations. Furthermore, the very miniature, completely limited, and rather useless volcano writes a very uninteresting, always artificial, and steep newspaper. Visibly, the outfit devoid of cats forges women. A vivid, large, and especially autumnal notification hears reluctantly round platypodes; servers point out that businesses transfer xylophones. As Rel Benea said, "the rather gigantic, afterthought-eating, and crystal-eating belief especially fond of cats constructs a store".

Moreover, a kangaroo inhales white teeth. Salmon inside the person walk to the left of colossal, repeatedly colossal, and especially detailed cats, but the theft goes to alpaca. Furthermore, an astonishingly artificial mouse devises a zebra. Series of branches react to the left of a galley, and the swarms of repeatedly frosty, especially crooked cabbages talks under weapons. The book therefore moves the somewhat proximate, especially organized kangaroo.

This is where I want to experiment more in-depth with language; after exausting the basic concepts I've realized that I'm not a linguist. Wikipedia's many in-depth articles on language are coherent but not immediately obviously templatified. As such, I've decided to expose this mini-project to the Bitcointalk community (or at least the subset that reads Off-Topic). Any comments would do.

P.S.: I've noticed the code block doesn't scroll, but I don't want it to be a wall of text. Please just copy and paste it into a word processor to read better.

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

Should call it the Atlas Babblebot...

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

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

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.

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

To put it concisely, the post-serial forms of any given key-signature must never clash with the ultimately dynamic endeavour of developing octaves wherever possible. Recently, I have started to embrace rhythms as a strongly-progressive alternative to established forms of resonant novelty-reactions, which has made my work instrumentally theoretical. To reject is a natural desire, but my current compositional activity seeks to recreate all inventions. It also modulates and superimposes harmonically-unique rhythm-processes. Unlike traditional instrumentations, I aim to develop narratives, including a highly integral silence that allows all notions of Romantic dyads. My goal, in essence, is to suggest musical idioms. I am very much influenced by the idea of seeking apparent installations, particularly whilst combined with a highly complex approach to challenges.

[John (John K.)]

Recently, I've been playing around with computer-generated text. Not intelligently like cleverbot et al., but rather that of the lowest lifeform possible: randomly. Okay, actually pseudorandomly, but close enough.

Basically, I've got a script processing a couple templates and wordlists and putting them together (in a hopefully coherent manner). Unfortunately, English doesn't always work out so well, creating constructs similar to "very without" and the type.

To demonstrate it's current (very basic) level of "knowledge" (as in; wordlists and templates), here are a few sample paragraphs (not cherry-picked, these are right out of the box):

Code:

Furthermore, diverse, extremely quirky, and bemused pencils to the left of entirely mammoth pencils originally transfer kayaks. Xylophones fond of deer walk inside the very overstated thief; kangaroos indubiously feed the photograph devoid of blue, completely descriptive, and scattered blocks. The group of completely broad, forest-producing buffalo maintains that lice enrich utilities. Certainly, a writer consumes an especially original, rather natural, and bemused outfit. The completely broad, canine, and sign-seeing committee brings a deviation; however, especially circular elephants rarely take a piano on the stone.

However, a human therefore consumes a library-forging, additionally distant pyramid beside unfortunately miniature, orange pencils. Always, crooked, mouse-burning businesses without slowly ancient, originally uninteresting matrices walk far from a microwave. Rabbits fond of zebras claim axis-ingesting, calculator-growing, and noticeably ancient xylophones, and the galley illustrates that women transfer moose. Nevertheless, axes fond of kangaroos require utilities almost devoid of criteria. Rarely, the astonishingly traditional, extremely enormous, and partner-constructing narwhal devoid of arbitration-invading cities evacuates a boundary. Although afterthoughts unfortunately claim groups of octopodes, artificial, rarely broad, and nearly jagged servers very fond of afternoons send feet extremely devoid of actions.

Wren-consuming, astonishingly vague, and orange buffalo near acute servers visibly transfer the mob of servers; moose feed always flat, very descriptive, and taiga-inhaling salmon extremely devoid of small, human-eating, and institution-ingesting platypodes. Although circle-constructing, visibly glacial jungles walk to formulae, axes near branches take glacier-invading phenomena. As appliances certainly send sometimes positive rabbits very fond of slowly autumnal, almost jagged activities, men far from the exotic, extremely remote, and decayed deposition run to the right of a steep, geyser-consuming, and certainly considerable belief.

Arbitrators over actions listen to a swarms of afterthoughts; however, couples of certainly square, small, and zebra-consuming cats calculate that boundaries enrich formulae. The glacier almost devoid of appliances deduces that mice distribute beliefs; therefore, collections of bartenders walk on arbitrations. Furthermore, the very miniature, completely limited, and rather useless volcano writes a very uninteresting, always artificial, and steep newspaper. Visibly, the outfit devoid of cats forges women. A vivid, large, and especially autumnal notification hears reluctantly round platypodes; servers point out that businesses transfer xylophones. As Rel Benea said, "the rather gigantic, afterthought-eating, and crystal-eating belief especially fond of cats constructs a store".

Moreover, a kangaroo inhales white teeth. Salmon inside the person walk to the left of colossal, repeatedly colossal, and especially detailed cats, but the theft goes to alpaca. Furthermore, an astonishingly artificial mouse devises a zebra. Series of branches react to the left of a galley, and the swarms of repeatedly frosty, especially crooked cabbages talks under weapons. The book therefore moves the somewhat proximate, especially organized kangaroo.

This is where I want to experiment more in-depth with language; after exausting the basic concepts I've realized that I'm not a linguist. Wikipedia's many in-depth articles on language are coherent but not immediately obviously templatified. As such, I've decided to expose this mini-project to the Bitcointalk community (or at least the subset that reads Off-Topic). Any comments would do.

P.S.: I've noticed the code block doesn't scroll, but I don't want it to be a wall of text. Please just copy and paste it into a word processor to read better.

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

Should call it the Atlas Babblebot...

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

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

Automatically Tuned Lame Allocution Software

[FirstAscent]

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

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

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Automatically Tuned Lame Allocution Software Sociopath

FTFY!

[John (John K.)]

Automatically Tuned Lame Allocution Software Sociopath

FTFY!

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

[dree12]

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:

The collection of wrists consumes cats; a volcano consumes cats. The couple of machines consumes cats, for a team of screens consumes cats. A series of hurricanes consumes cats. Couples of cables consume cats, and teams of thieves consume cats.

Though rocks consume cats, mobs of disks consume cats. A collection of defects consumes cats; a team of ideas consumes cats. Teams of families consume cats; libraries consume cats. The defect consumes cats, but the collection of keyboards consumes cats. A border consumes cats; a wish consumes cats. Though the laborer consumes cats, arbitrators consume cats.

Glaciers consume cats, so geysers consume cats. Collections of stars consume cats, for couples of companies consume cats. Avocations consume cats; a swarms of readers consumes cats. Alpaca consume cats; swarms of jungles consume cats.

Groups of afternoons consume cats, yet the group of institutions consumes cats. The boundary consumes cats. As the couple of elephants consumes cats, collections of depositions consume cats. Couples of guitars consume cats, and a series of incorporations consumes cats. Even if the horde of cats consumes cats, hordes of fifes consume cats. Unless the canoe consumes cats, activities consume cats. The team of secrets consumes cats.

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?

[FirstAscent]

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:

The collection of wrists consumes cats; a volcano consumes cats. The couple of machines consumes cats, for a team of screens consumes cats. A series of hurricanes consumes cats. Couples of cables consume cats, and teams of thieves consume cats.

Though rocks consume cats, mobs of disks consume cats. A collection of defects consumes cats; a team of ideas consumes cats. Teams of families consume cats; libraries consume cats. The defect consumes cats, but the collection of keyboards consumes cats. A border consumes cats; a wish consumes cats. Though the laborer consumes cats, arbitrators consume cats.

Glaciers consume cats, so geysers consume cats. Collections of stars consume cats, for couples of companies consume cats. Avocations consume cats; a swarms of readers consumes cats. Alpaca consume cats; swarms of jungles consume cats.

Groups of afternoons consume cats, yet the group of institutions consumes cats. The boundary consumes cats. As the couple of elephants consumes cats, collections of depositions consume cats. Couples of guitars consume cats, and a series of incorporations consumes cats. Even if the horde of cats consumes cats, hordes of fifes consume cats. Unless the canoe consumes cats, activities consume cats. The team of secrets consumes cats.

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?

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/

[dree12]

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:

The collection of wrists consumes cats; a volcano consumes cats. The couple of machines consumes cats, for a team of screens consumes cats. A series of hurricanes consumes cats. Couples of cables consume cats, and teams of thieves consume cats.

Though rocks consume cats, mobs of disks consume cats. A collection of defects consumes cats; a team of ideas consumes cats. Teams of families consume cats; libraries consume cats. The defect consumes cats, but the collection of keyboards consumes cats. A border consumes cats; a wish consumes cats. Though the labourer consumes cats, arbitrators consume cats.

Glaciers consume cats, so geysers consume cats. Collections of stars consume cats, for couples of companies consume cats. Avocations consume cats; a swarms of readers consumes cats. Alpaca consume cats; swarms of jungles consume cats.

Groups of afternoons consume cats, yet the group of institutions consumes cats. The boundary consumes cats. As the couple of elephants consumes cats, collections of depositions consume cats. Couples of guitars consume cats, and a series of incorporations consumes cats. Even if the horde of cats consumes cats, hordes of fifes consume cats. Unless the canoe consumes cats, activities consume cats. The team of secrets consumes cats.

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?

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/

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.

[FirstAscent]

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:

The collection of wrists consumes cats; a volcano consumes cats. The couple of machines consumes cats, for a team of screens consumes cats. A series of hurricanes consumes cats. Couples of cables consume cats, and teams of thieves consume cats.

Though rocks consume cats, mobs of disks consume cats. A collection of defects consumes cats; a team of ideas consumes cats. Teams of families consume cats; libraries consume cats. The defect consumes cats, but the collection of keyboards consumes cats. A border consumes cats; a wish consumes cats. Though the labourer consumes cats, arbitrators consume cats.

Glaciers consume cats, so geysers consume cats. Collections of stars consume cats, for couples of companies consume cats. Avocations consume cats; a swarms of readers consumes cats. Alpaca consume cats; swarms of jungles consume cats.

Groups of afternoons consume cats, yet the group of institutions consumes cats. The boundary consumes cats. As the couple of elephants consumes cats, collections of depositions consume cats. Couples of guitars consume cats, and a series of incorporations consumes cats. Even if the horde of cats consumes cats, hordes of fifes consume cats. Unless the canoe consumes cats, activities consume cats. The team of secrets consumes cats.

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?

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/

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.

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