AI Zone Admin Forum Add your forum

NEWS: survey on 3000 US and UK consumers shows it is time for chatbot integration in customer service!read more..

Trying to formulate a Winograd Schema

The Americans voiced their displeasure with the protesters’ handling of the flags. They were [further, also, soon] mistreated for what happened. What does ‘They’ refer to?

This has a great deal of problems. I think “further” works perfectly for the flags, but “also” can refer to both the protesters and the Americans (if they, like the flags, were also mistreated). “soon” can refer to both the protesters and the Americans.

One possibility is to add words about the Americans and protesters. For example, the peaceful/angry Americans or the peaceful/angry Protesters. Then you could talk about the mistreatment as being uncharacteristic or characteristic.

But this defeats the near-impossibility of a chatbot giving a good answer.


  [ # 1 ]

What do you need it for?
One point of Winograd schemas is that they must be clear to humans. Here is it is left unspoken “what happened”, and I see no reason for maltreatment of either Americans voicing displeasure or protesters handling flags. Pronouns aside, it is not clear what is going on in the first statement. How does one handle a flag wrongly? Whose flags? What are they protesting?

Here are official examples of Winograd schemas:


  [ # 2 ]

Hi Don,
I’m essentially making it because I’m interested in Winograd schemas.

The whole point of the question is solely to determine who “They” refers to. It has little to do with the actual politics of flag maltreatment, especially since it’s subjective: What one person thinks is right, is a sin to another.
In leaving out these details the question still makes sense. However, it is still too subjective as a result of its lack of information.

So, what interested me in your response was your need for more information about the protest. I think this is a good place to start. If I perhaps added information about where the Americans and protesters were - the reasons for why they would or wouldn’t clash based on the environment - that could make it less subjective overall.

Perhaps I could set up a sentence about the mistreatment from an observer. “They really wasted their time to cause more provoking” vs “They shouldn’t strike out against peaceful opposition” vs “They shouldn’t have become vigilantes over something not worth it”. Maybe not that, but something similar.

As for the official examples - thanks but I already knew them wink


  login or register to react