----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <agi@v2.listbox.com> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
> Right, and young children can't learn much from reading the Net... No disagreement there. An AGI wannabe with limited English would have to converse with people instead of using most information on the Net today, at least, until it's vocabulary got big enough. > We can teach it using simple english utterances, like a child > > Or we can teach it using pairs of the form > > (simple English utterance, Lojban utterance) Why not instead of "simple English" versus "simple English and new language" the comparison was "more advanced English" versus "simple English and new language"? Why not spend the extra you show for Lojban and use more complicated English instead? > which should give it an advantage over a child in terms of more easily > building an understanding of what is being said to it. What about context, understanding? Do you agree or disagree with my point that they are the problem to be solved regardless of the language used? > The disadvantage is that the teachers would have to learn Lojban, and > a small amount of coding work would need to be done to map the output > of current Lojban parsers into an AI's knowledge representation. I think you underestimate the problem of having to teach all AGI teachers a foreign, complicated language that they would use nowhere else. I apologize for my crack about Java versus Lojban. Although they are both syntactically un-ambiguous, they were designed for totally different purposes and Java, in no way, could be used as a NL of any kind. -- David Clark ----- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
