On Nov 2, 2007 3:56 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 2007 8:53 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Natural language is a fundamental part of the knowledge > > base, not something you can add on later. > > > > I disagree. You can start with a KB that contains concepts retrieved > > from a well structured non-NL input format only, get the thinking > > algorithms working and then (possibly much later) let the system to > > focus on NL analysis/understanding or build some > > NL-to-the_structured_format translation tools. > > Well, good luck with that.
If you can't get meaning from clean input format then what makes you think you can handle NL? When working on an AGI proof of concept, NL just adds unnecessary complexity. > Are you aware of how many thousands of times this > approach has been tried? Are you aware in how many ways you can go wrong with: a) the KB design b) general problem solving algorithms c) specifics of the input format/framework (including context supporting mechanisms etc..) ? There is nothing wrong with a non-NL input format when working on the a proof of concept AGI. You just need to get all the important stuff right, which is tricky. When kids learn NL, they get lots of extra data through senses - which provides certain structure and plays critical role in concept understanding. Practically, NL-only input (which some wannabe AGIs are playing with) is not good enough. You somehow need to substitute at least some of the extra info. It's doable through well designed non-NL input format (which not only avoids sticky NL syntax issues but also significantly supports semantic analysis). Of course you can also go with NL and simulated human senses ;-)... But good luck with that. Regards, Jiri Jelinek ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=60691123-6925d3
