Richard Loosemore wrote:
...
This is a question directed at this whole thread, about simplifying
language to communicate with an AI system, so we can at least get
something working, and then go from there....
This rationale is the very same rationale that drove researchers into
Blocks World programs. Winograd and SHRDLU, etc. It was a mistake
then: it is surely just as much of a mistake now.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
Not surely. It's definitely a defensible position, but I don't see any
evidence that it has even a 50% probability of being correct.
Also I'm not certain that SHRDLU and Blocks World were mistakes. They
didn't succeed in their goals, but they remain as important markers. At
each step we have limitations imposed by both our knowledge and our
resources. These limits aren't constant. (P.S.: I'd throw Eliza into
this same category...even though the purpose behind Eliza was different.)
Think of the various approaches taken as being experiments with the user
interface...since that's a large part of what they were. They are, of
course, also experiments with how far one can push a given technique
before encountering a combinatorial explosion. People don't seem very
good at understanding that intuitively. In neural nets this same
problem re-appears as saturation, the point at which as you learn new
things old things become fuzzier and less certain. This may have some
relevance to the way that people are continually re-writing their
memories whenever they remember something.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
