Matt, > Watson's knowledge base is 4 TB of text. That is 4000 times larger > than an average person would hear and read in a lifetime. That, and a > fast reaction time on the buzzer, compensates for it other weaknesses > such as lack of vision and embodiment. > > Reasoning about space and time are fairly simple, but these are only 2 > of over 100 modules, each of which can answer only a few percent of > the questions. The intelligence comes from putting all of these > together. > > What kind of test would be appropriate for comparing Watson with OpenCog?
At this moment, Watson is certainly a more impressively demonstrable system than OpenCog. It also is the result of massively more man-years (and even massively more dollars) of effort, of course... If OpenCog is successful it will lead (at some time well before it hypothetically leads to a human-level AGI) to an English dialogue system that is able to flexibly, common-sensically converse about what a virtual or robotic agent is experiencing... As I am not the one obsessed with quantitative metrics, boiling that down into a formal test is not really my problem... I would imagine that if one formulated a highly precise test for "flexible, common-sensical conversation about the experiences of a virtual or robotic agent", then some Watson-like approach might well work for passing that test ------ even though this approach would not be effectively generalizable to human-level AGI..... But if we got to this level with an OpenCog system, I believe we would be well on the path to human-level AGI -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
