It is good to see that you are highly enthusiastic and determined on this project. So my best wishes are with you.
Language is a symbolic representation of knowledge, not knowledge itself. Feeding a bot with symbols will result in more symbols at its output. They may appear meaningful to you and you can declare that it has passed certain test. You have in effect implemented a module of AGI which can communicate its internal states through English, only thing is that, in itself, it has no internal states at all.
An AGI can communicate with another AGI through representations or rules totally different from human language, fail a test (say Turing's), and still be superior to humans. This shows that natural language processing is not a prerequisite for AGI, nor is Turing's test.
Such system cannot produce novelty, except saying the same thing in 100 different ways (like a poet). It will be always limited to what humans already know, so there is no hope that it will surpass human intelligence. In fact it will always lag behind humans, however smart it is. Such thing can become a pretty useful narrow AI tool, say for search engines or for teaching language etc.
-Sanjay
On 5/8/06, Gary Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wasn't planning on teaching it poetry Sanjay. That would probably be a dead giveaway on the Turing test. So unless Virtual Poet is a technical term that I have not been exposed to, I'm not sure where you're coming from with that.My eventual goal is definitely strong AI but in the short term I would be satisfied with an application which had strong commercial value in the areas of help desk agents, natural language program specification and knowledge management. The proceeds from such a venture would go a long ways towards financing the later development phases.An expert system is usually an idiot savant and is limited to a narrowly defined problem domain. My program aims to be conversant in a wide conversational domain sufficient to pass a limited Turing test. (No visual recognition required)I agree that people have spent time developing bots before and they have always been thwarted by the sheer number of different ways that a human being can express a single thought as well as the sheer number of items that humans talk about.Which is why my research has led to a pattern language that can compress all of the synonymous thoughts into a single pattern.While we can't constrain the number of items the bot knows about and still have it appear/be intelligent. We can study what things that people talk about most frequently and what most people know so that the bot are conversant on the same subjects as an average person.I for example would probably not be very conversant of topics in nuclear energy beyond maybe 20 or 30 facts, concerns, and opinions.It is also difficult to quantify the reason most bot projects have been abandoned. Lack of time, lack of money, lack of interest. It is a very big project from a knowledge acquisition standpoint. Most research grants have to occur within a limited time period where you either publish or perish. A project this large would not fit into such a timeframe. In the past when such program have been attempted present day computing resources were not available. I myself had to shelve a few designs for six years until the computing power became affordable to me. I have one back shelf design now that offer me incremental improvement but requires an eightfold improvement in computing speed over what I have now.What is the largest bot project you know of and at what point was it abandoned and why? How may patterns did it have? What percent of it's responses were correct in extended conversations. Where do I find these research results?I don't know the answer to this and I have done a good deal of reading. Most people don't spend a lot of time documenting their failures. If they're lucky they are recognized for what they have learned and are absorbed into new position on a more conventional project with a shorter payback which makes it commercially viable.Actually reading supports that the largest medical expert systems were equal to or superior to their human counterparts but were abandoned largely because of legal liability concerns about the danger of misdiagnosis. I guess no one could figure out how to make money selling malpractice insurance to an expert system that didn't drink and make errors in accepted medical protocols. And if an intern could use a program to diagnose an illness with a program as accurately as a medical specialist then there wouldn't be a need to pay those specialists as much.As far as repeating mistakes goes, mythology tells us of Icarus who flew to close to the sun and fell to his death, Leonardo Davinci designed the first airplanes, and it wasn't until the Wright Brothers that things literally got off the ground.Name me a a single great inventor who did not fly in the face of convention and did not need to endure the discouragement of mediocre minds.Subject: Re: [agi] Logic and Knowledge Representation
On 5/7/06, Gary Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:My opinion on the most probable route to a true AI Entity is:1. Build a better fuzzy pattern representation language with an inference mechanism for extracting inducible information from user inputs. Fuzziness allows thelanguage to understand utterances with misspellings words run together etc...2. Build a bot based on said language3. Build a large knowledgebase which captures a large enough percentage of real world knowledge to allow the bot learn from natural language data sources i.e. the web.4. Build a pattern generator which allows the bot learn the information it has read and build new patterns itself to represent the knowledge.5. Build a reasoning module based on Bayesian logic to allow simple reasoning to be conducted.6. Build a conflict resolution module to allow the Bot to resolve/correct conflicting information or ask for help with clarification to build correct mental model.7. Build a goal and planning module which allow the Bot to operate more autonomously to aid in the goals which we give it i.e.. achieve singularity.
I'm afraid you'll end up with a virtual poet with this approach !
It will result in a narrow AI, or a vastly inflated expert system, not a true AGI. People have already done this mistake earlier, why repeat it?
-Sanjay
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
