You are welcome. Indeed, I was tempted to keep it for myself ;-)
Please. DON'T! :-)
As for learning rules, I guess you know the work
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/605753.html or similar. In practical
contexts, it must be integrated with learning the semantical lexicon
(e.g., feature structures), and thus, the "ontology".
Yup. That's what I'm trying to do.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lukasz Stafiniak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI
project?
You are welcome. Indeed, I was tempted to keep it for myself ;-)
As for learning rules, I guess you know the work
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/605753.html or similar. In practical
contexts, it must be integrated with learning the semantical lexicon
(e.g., feature structures), and thus, the "ontology".
On 5/8/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally, I found the dissertation highly enlightening and helpful.
Yes, it addresses ambiguity problems with rules (though I debate both of
Matt's descriptors -- the term huge and the term complicated) without
specifying how these rules might be machine-learned -- but doing so is
still
a tremendously useful first step. Further, I think that requiring a
model
that learns *all* language rules from unlabeled text (and starting from
scratch) is making the problem far harder than it needs to be. You
didn't
do that as a child so why should you insist upon it for a system?
Thank you very much for the reference, Lukasz!
Mark
-----
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/?&;
-----
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
