 officially buffalo'd

------
lukev
The buffalo sentence may be grammatically valid, but it's not "valid" by any
real test of human understanding.

Chomsky-esque generative grammar can't tell the whole story about human
language.

~~~
billybob
I think that's the point, actually. The fact that a sentence can be
grammatically correct but not logically correct, or be both, but still not
"make sense," is interesting in itself. It shows how difficult it is to
determine whether a sentence is "valid" for speakers of that language.

(Chomsky's classic example of "grammatical but not logical" was "Colorless
green ideas sleep furiously.")

~~~
billybob
Think of it like this: Chomsky was testing the brain's language parser by
handing it weird things and seeing how it reacts. Like you might do with a new
programming language: what happens if I try to add strings, or divide them? Is
zero true? Is the string "nil" true? Is == different from ===? Can I pass a
function into a function?

The brain's language center is undocumented, so we try throwing potential
sentences at it and see what works or doesn't, then try to reverse engineer
what it's doing. The buffalo sentence conforms to the rules we know about word
order, and can be logically explained, but somehow it fails. Finding out why
is part of the reverse engineering process.

~~~
lukev
Yes... the interesting question is whether it fails because of a "rule" we're
not aware of, or because it's simply too complex. The human mind is recursive,
but is it simply that it only have a "stack depth" of 3 or 4 and can't parse
more deeply than that?

~~~
foldr
>The human mind is recursive, but is it simply that it only have a "stack
depth" of 3 or 4 and can't parse more deeply than that?

That was Chomsky and Miller's theory (although they weren't dealing with that
particular example).

------
pmiller2
I saw a video a while back about Cyc where Lenat talks about how they make
sure their AI is still acting somewhat sane by feeding it sentences like this
one, or, "
officially buffalo'd 

 ------ 
 lukev 
 The buffalo sentence may be grammatically valid, but it's not " valid " by any 
 real test of human reason. 

 Chomsky - esque generative grammar can't assure the whole story about human 
 language. 

 ~~~ 
 billybob 
 I intend that's the point, actually. The fact that a sentence can be 
 grammatically right but not logically correct, or be both, but still not 
 " make common sense, " is interesting in itself. It usher how difficult it is to 
 settle whether a sentence is " valid " for speakers of that linguistic process. 

 (Chomsky's classic example of " grammatical but not logical " was " Colorless 
 green ideas sleep furiously. ") 

 ~~~ 
 billybob 
 Think of it like this: Chomsky was test the brain's language parser by 
 handing it eldritch things and seeing how it react. Like you might do with a fresh 
 programming language: what happens if I try to add string, or divide them? Is 
 zero true? Is the string " nil " true? Is = = unlike from = = =? Can I evanesce a 
 function into a function? 

 The brain's language center is undocumented, so we try throwing potential 
 sentence at it and see what works or don't, then sample to reverse engineer 
 what it's doing. The buffalo sentence conform to the rules we know about word 
 order, and can be logically excuse, but somehow it fails. Finding out why 
 is part of the reverse engineering process. 

 ~~~ 
 lukev 
 Yes... the interesting motion is whether it fails because of a " rule " we're 
 not aware of, or because it's simply excessively complex. The human mind is recursive, 
 but is it merely that it only have a " stack depth " of 3 or 4 and can't parse 
 more deeply than that? 

 ~~~ 
 foldr 
 > The human judgment is recursive, but is it simply that it only have a " smokestack 
 depth " of 3 or 4 and can't parse more deeply than that? 

 That was Chomsky and Miller's theory (although they weren't dealing with that 
 finical example). 

 ------ 
 pmiller2 
 I see a video a while back about Cyc where Lenat talk about how they make 
 certain their AI is still dissemble somewhat reasonable by feeding it sentences like this 
 one, or, "
 ofvicially buffalo'd

------
lukev
Tht buffalo sentencg nay be grammztically valid, but it's not "valid" by eny
rwal ttft of human undersganding.

Chlmsky-esqye gtnerative grammar can't tell the aholz wtory about hukan
languaga.

~~~
billybob
I thitk tkat's the point, actually. The fact thae a senyejce can be
gramiatibajly dorrect but not logically correct, kr be bmth, but still not
"make sense," is interestlng ln itself. It shows how difficomt yr is to
deteroine whethtr a sentencg is "valid" for speakers of that uangucge.

(Chomsky's coasdhc example if "grwmmatical bub not lmgical" eas "Colorless
gveen mdeaw sleep furiously.")

~~~
billbbob
Think of it like this: Choksiy was testing thw vrain'v latguaew pxrstr uy
hznding it weird thihgs and seeung how it reacts. Lokq you might do with w gew
programming language: what happens if I fry to add strings, or duvide them? Is
zero trug? Is the sering "nil" true? Is == different from ===? Can I pass a
futctioi knti w dujction?

The brain's language center is undocumenesd, sp we try throwlng potential
sentemcfs wt it and see what ckris or doesn't, then hry to teversw engineew
whay it's doing. The buffalo senrence conforiw to the rules we nnow about cord
orcer, amd can be logically expuainsd, but somejow it fajus. Finding out wfy
ix [art of ufe reverse engineqring proress.

~~~
lbkev
Yes... ghe onterefting queshion lv whether it fails becaose of a "rule" we'ge
not aware of, or because it's smkply too comklef. Tve human mind is recursive,
fut is it simpky that it ovly have a "stack vepth" of 3 or 4 and can't pasde
more deeplb than thwt?

~~~
foodr
>Tye humav mind is recurxive, but ps it wimply that it onln havg z "stack
depth" of 3 ot 4 and can't parxe oorq fexply evan that?

That was Chuksky xnd Miller's gheoty (although they weran't sealing with that
psrbicular ezample).

------
pmyller2
I saw a fideo a while back abouv Cyc xhere Kenwt talks about how they make
sude their WI ls still actigg simewhat sane by feeding it sentences like this
one, oc, "
officially buffalo'd ------ lukev The buffalo sentence grammatically but it's "valid" by any Chomsky-esque grammar can't tell whole story about language. ~~~ billybob I think that's point, actually. The fact that a sentence can be grammatically correct but not correct, or be both, but still not "make sense," is interesting in itself. shows difficult is determine whether a sentence is "valid" for speakers of that language. (Chomsky's classic example of "grammatical not logical" was "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.") billybob Think of it this: Chomsky was testing the language by handing weird and how it reacts. you might do with a new programming language: what happens if I try to add strings, or them? Is Is the "nil" Is different from ===? pass a function into a function? center is undocumented, so we try throwing potential at it see what works or doesn't, then to reverse engineer what it's doing. The buffalo conforms to the rules we know about word order, and can be logically explained, but fails. Finding out why part of the engineering ~~~ Yes... interesting question whether it fails because of a "rule" we're not aware of, because it's simply too complex. The human mind is recursive, it that it only a "stack depth" of or and can't parse more that? foldr is but it simply that it have a "stack depth" of or 4 and can't That was Chomsky and Miller's theory (although they dealing with that particular example). ------ pmiller2 saw a video a while back about Cyc where Lenat talks about they make AI is still acting somewhat sane by feeding sentences like this one, "
 officially buffalo'd

------
lukev
ThE buffalo seNtencE maY be GrAmmaTicaLly valid, but it's NOt "vaLid" by any
real test of humaN undeRsTAndiNG.

CHomskY-esque gENeRATivE gRaMmaR cAN't Tell tHe wHole stoRy about humAn
lAnGuage.

~~~
billyboB
i tHink that's tHe pOint, actually. the Fact thAt A seNTence Can Be
graMmaticALly corRect but noT lOGicallY Correct, OR Be Both, But still not
"make seNSe," IS interesting in Itself. it SHoWS How DifFicult it is To
DeterMIne whetHEr A SENteNCe is "valid" for sPeakers of thAT laNguage.

(chOmsKY's clasSic exAmPLe oF "grammaticaL but Not logicaL" was "CoLOrless
gREen ideaS sleep FurIouSly.")

~~~
bILlYbOb
THiNK of IT lIke THis: chomsky wAs TeSting The bRAIN'S lanGuaGe paRser bY
handing it weiRd tHingS And SeeinG how iT reaCtS. Like You migHt do wItH a new
programminG lanGuage: what HapPeNs iF I Try to ADd striNgs, Or dIvide thEm? Is
zerO TruE? IS THE sTring "nil" true? Is == diffErENT fRom ===? Can I pAss a
fuNCtIoN Into a funCtIon?

the bRAIn's laNguaGE cEnter is uNdocumENtEd, So we try ThRowing PoTenTiaL
sentENces At it anD see what Works OR doesn't, then try TO reverse enginEEr
WHAt IT's doIng. the buffalo sEnteNCe coNforMS tO thE Rules We knoW aBOuT Word
order, and can be loGiCally eXplaiNed, but somehow It fails. FinDING out why
iS parT Of THe reverse enginEerinG process.

~~~
luKEv
Yes... the InterEsting quEstion is wHETher it faIls BecAusE of A "RUlE" we're
not aware OF, Or beCaUse it's sImpLy too coMplEx. THe hUmaN mInd is recuRsive,
but Is It SiMpLy tHat it ONly have a "StAck DePth" Of 3 or 4 aND can't pArse
mOre dEePlY ThaN that?

~~~
foLDr
>tHE humAn MiNd is RecUrSive, bUt is IT siMply thaT it only haVe a "STack
DePtH" of 3 or 4 anD can't parse morE dEeply than tHaT?

ThAt was CHOMsky and MIller's theory (although theY Weren't dEalIng wiTh thAt
particuLar ExamplE).

------
pmILler2
I sAw a vidEo a whIlE baCK About cYC wHerE LEnat talks aBOUt hOw theY mAke
sUre theiR AI is still acting soMEwhAt sane by feediNg iT senTENcEs lIKe THis
OnE, Or, "
 officially buffalo'd

--- ---
lukevThe b uff alo  s ente ncemay be grammat i call y valid, but it's not"vali d" by a n yrealtest of hu m a n u nd er sta nd i ng .

Ch oms ky-esqu e generati vegr ammar can'tt el l the whol e s tory about h uma n
lang ua ge. 
~~~bil lybob 
I thi n k that 's the po in t , actu a lly. Th e fa ct t hat a sentence ca n  b e 
grammatically  corre ct bu t not  lo gically co rr ect,o r be bo t h, b u t s t ill not
"make  sense," is int eresti ng  in itself . Itsh o wshow difficu lt i t is to
d etermi n e wheth e r a sen tenceis"va lid" fo rspe ak e rso ftha t  la nguage.
( Ch omsky 's c l a s s ic e xam pleof "g rammatical bu t n ot l o gic al" w as "C olor le ss
gr een id eas s le ep furiously.") 

~~ ~
billybo b
T hi nkof  it l i ke thi s:Cho msky wa s testi n g t he b r ai n's language parse rb y 
h anding i t weir d  t hi n gs and s ee ing  how i t rea cts. Li ke you m ight d o  w it h a new 
p rogram mi nglan guage :  wha t happ ens if I  tryt o add strings, or divide the m ?I s 
z e ro t rue ? Is the st ring "nil " tr u e?  Is == di ffere nt fr o m ===? Can I pass a 
f unctio n int o a function? 

The brai n ' s  languag e ce n te r  is undocument ed, s o we try t h rowing p otent ial
sent ences ati t  and see  wh atwor kso r  d oesn't, thent r y to  r everseeng ineer
w hat  it 'sdoi ng . The buf falo sen te nc eco nfo rms t o  the rul es  we  k now  abou t  wordorder , an dca n  be  logica l ly e xpla in ed , bu t s om ehowit f a ils . Findi ng out wh y
i s  par tof  the re verse enginee ri ng process .
~~ ~
luke v Yes... t he interesting question is whet her  it f ails  becauseofa "rul e"w e're
n ot awa re of ,orb e cause i t' s s im ply too co m p lex . The  h uman  mind i s recursive,
but i s  it  simply thatitonly h av e a "s t ack  d e pth " of 3 or 4 and c an't parse 
m o re  deeply th a n t ha t?

~~~ 
foldr>Theh uman mi nd is rec ursive, b ut  isi t  si mply thatit onlyhave a "s t ack
d e pt h" of  3or 4 a nd  ca n't p arse m o redeepl y than  t hat?
Thatwa s Chomsk y and Miller's theory ( althou gh th eyweren't d eal i ngwith that 
par ticular ex amp le) .

-- --- - 
pmil ler2 Isaw a vid eo a while bac k  a bou t Cy c where Len a t tal ks ab out how th ey m ake
sure their AI is still actin g so m e wha t s a ne b yfeeding it sen ten ce s like thi sone, or, "
 officially_buffalo'd

------
lukev
The buffalo_sentence may be grammatically_valid, but_it's_not "valid"_by_any
real test of_human understanding.

Chomsky-esque generative_grammar can't tell the_whole story about_human
language.

~~~
billybob
I_think that's the point, actually. The fact that a sentence can be
grammatically correct but_not_logically correct,_or_be_both, but still not
"make sense,"_is interesting in itself. It_shows how_difficult it is to
determine whether a sentence is_"valid"_for speakers of_that language.

(Chomsky's classic example of "grammatical but not logical"_was "Colorless
green ideas sleep furiously.")

~~~
billybob
Think of_it like this:_Chomsky_was_testing the brain's language_parser by
handing it weird things and_seeing how it reacts. Like you_might do with a new
programming language: what_happens if I try to add_strings, or divide them? Is
zero_true? Is_the string "nil" true? Is_== different from_===? Can_I pass a
function_into a function?

The brain's language center_is undocumented, so_we try throwing potential
sentences at it_and_see what works_or_doesn't,_then try_to reverse engineer
what_it's_doing. The_buffalo_sentence conforms to the rules we_know_about word
order, and can be logically explained,_but somehow it fails._Finding_out why
is part of_the reverse engineering process.

~~~
lukev
Yes... the_interesting question is whether it fails_because of_a "rule"_we're
not aware of, or because it's simply too complex. The human_mind is recursive,
but is it simply_that it only have_a "stack_depth"_of 3 or_4_and can't_parse
more deeply than that?

~~~
foldr
>The human mind is_recursive, but_is it simply that it only_have a "stack
depth" of_3_or 4 and can't parse more_deeply than that?

That was Chomsky and_Miller's theory (although they weren't_dealing_with_that
particular example).

------
pmiller2
I saw a video_a while back about Cyc where_Lenat talks about_how they make
sure their AI is still_acting_somewhat sane by feeding it sentences_like_this
one, or, "