I've always considered the whole world/universe as one big database. A system that narrows its focus to a partial set of knowledge contained in say, a computer database, will be excellent when performing within the realm of which that database was created.
Everyone needs to start wearing microphones and ear-pieces for the computer to communicate to you with. What's the longest time it could take to develop a human-computer communication protocol, 20 years? I need to attach one to my 6 month old daughter now, before it's too late! Heard about this DB yet? http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ap/xml/02/12/16/021216apfastalk.xml cheers, Simon > On the other hand, if a system learns something through reading out of a DB, it > doesn't > have this surround of related things to draw on, so it will be far less able to > adapt and build > on that thing it's learned... > > My view is that a linguistic DB is not necessarily the kiss of death for an AGI > system -- but I > don't think you can build an AGI system that has a DB as its *primary source* of > linguistic > knowledge. If an AGI system uses a linguistic DB as one among many sources of > linguistic > information -- and the others are mostly experience-based -- then it may still > work, and the > linguistic DB may potentially accelerate aspects of its learning.. ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
