I have a question for LWers who are non-native English speakers.

I am working on a software system for linguistically sophisticated analysis of English text. At the core of the system is a sentence parser. Unlike most other research in NLP, a central goal of my work is to develop linguistic knowledge and then build that knowledge into the parser. For example, my system knows that the verb ask connects strongly to subjectized infinitive phrases ("I asked him to take out the trash"), unlike most other verbs.

The system also has a nice parse visualization tool, which shows the grammatical structure of an input sentence. You can check it out here.

This work began as a research project and I am trying to figure out a way to commercialize it. One of my ideas is to use the system as a tool for helping students to learn English. Students could submit confusing sentences to the system and observe the parse tree, allowing them to understand the grammatical structure. They could also submit their own written sentences to the system, as a way of checking their grammar. Teachers of ESL students might also ask them to submit their class papers to the parser to check for obvious mistakes (apparently there are many people who can communicate well in spoken English but whose written English is full of mistakes).

I would also write up a series of articles about subtle points of English grammar, such as phrasal verbs, argument structure, verb tense, and so on. Students could then read the articles and experiment with using the relevant grammar patterns in the parser.

Does this sound like a plausible product that people would want to use? Are there products already on the market that do something similar? (I am aware of Grammarly, but it doesn't appear to show parse trees).

I think you should make a distinction if the different behaviours comes from different circumstances or not.
If their environment is always the same, then I think the only to have what you ask is if the system has a hidden, very specific parameter, that says "when X and Y and Z happens, zig instead of zagging".
Otherwise, if the model is slightly chaotic, then an important alteration to the environment might provoke very different behaviour.

For the first type of agent, think of two Markov chains almost identical, only one has a very improbable arc to a stable subnet that doesn't exists in the other chain.
For the second type, think of two similar strange attractors, that have different behaviours away from the stable parameters. They will be approximately identical in the same zone and be very different away from that zone.

Four Basic Personality Types Identified: Pessimistic; Optimistic; Envious And Trusting

A study on human behavior has revealed that 90% of the population can be classified into four basic personality types: Optimistic, Pessimistic, Trusting and Envious. However, the latter of the four types, Envious, is the most common, with 30% compared to 20% for each of the other groups.

http://www.science20.com/print/180407

Well, well, where have we seen this before? Looks like it's not just an altruism gene....

KIC 8462852 models that fit Kepler observations quite well

"I have proposed a type of model that is mathematically simple and, with slight variations, is able to produce excellent fits for all the major brightness drops observed in Tabby's star. If this is the correct type of model — its goodness of fit is highly encouraging — the following hypotheses should be considered:

1) Tabby's star has one ore more partially constructed Niven Rings. All partial rings are likely in the same orbital plane and possibly the same orbit.

2) Tabby's star hosts a Dyson Swarm, and some objects in the swarm cluster alongside shared orbits, with an object distribution given by an approximation of a Monod equation. Perhaps the distribution is intentional in D800, and meant to be a beacon.

3) We might be looking at the birth of an accretion disk, or a partial accretion disk. Perhaps Tabby's star is being slowly swallowed by another star or a black hole. Perhaps there's a natural reason why disk material would approximate a Monod distribution, quite perfectly sometimes, and chaotically on different occasions."

http://www.science20.com/indepth_analytics/blog/kic_8462852_models_that_fit_kepler_observations_quite_well-180403

The Neural Network Zoo

A visual characterization of most neural models, with brief descriptions.

http://www.asimovinstitute.org/neural-network-zoo/

What does Lesswrong think of this video? What Is God? - Leo Becomes Absolute Infinity (Aka God) - All Of Reality Explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VNoe5tn3tg

I also wonder: What do you think of subjective experience?

"Reality was there all along." The fact that someone believes something is part of reality, and if it changes, then reality is changing. There is no reason that this cannot take away some joy from someone, even if their beliefs end up less accurate.

As St. Paul said, "For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." Asserting that conforming your beliefs to reality cannot make you less joyful is itself a form of wishful thinking in which you refuse to conform your beliefs to reality.

You're referring to http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/, yes?

It just seems like those situations don't present themselves very often. More often, a situation presents itself like this: A team member makes all the wrong arguments to support a thesis I disagree with. Previously, I would just fight against each of his arguments. Now, I don't do anything much (I'm not good at convincing people) but instead keep thinking "yeah, yeah, arguments, soldiers, written the bottom line, blah, blah" without it actually being useful.

That's not really related to my main problems, but in general, rationality for me poses that problem, that merely thinking in a Sequences-like fashion causes me to feel sad and doesn't bring enough benefit to compensate, I suspect.

So... you can change laws of physics?

I don't know, I'm not a physicist. Based on my limited knowledge is that you cannot change the map. Imagine everything in the world being a map called X, and it has a revision number. Just because you know the maps are X and have a revision number doesn't undermine the content of the maps themselves. Your life experience might become different, however.

Who is then?

For there to be control, there has to first be someone or something which can be controlled and a controller. All is illusionary. You can create maps, but they will still be maps in relation to the arational.

And why do you call it my Matrix, since I cannot affect it in any way?

I'm telling you in a practical sense since you have to have the experience yourself. You believe you are a creature, being of some kind. You can affect your matrix, by realizing it is a matrix, it's kind of paradoxical.