On 11/3/07, Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These are the result of very very direct reasoning, very low cpu usage > (under 2 seconds, except for Lincoln, which had to weed out 20 things > named "Lincoln County") and yet, its vaguely comparable to something > that a 6-7-8-9-year-old might produce. > > Where is the developmental jump? At the pre-teen level?
I think this is the perfect answer to your question about why natural language is the wrong place to start. This isn't intended as personal criticism, but: look at what you just said. You've started talking about IQ and implying a program is vaguely comparable in intelligence to a 9 year old human... Based on a program that Google outperforms by several orders of magnitude. The problem with natural language is that the bandwidth is so tiny, it necessarily relies primarily on the reader's imagination. We are explicitly programmed, in other words, to assume intelligence on the part of any entity that talks to us in semi-coherent English, and to fill in all the gaps ourselves. There was intelligence at work in the exchanges you quoted, yes, but the intelligence was in your brain, not in the computer. Before natural language is worth doing, you need to have a program that does some nontrivial computation in the first place. My suggestion is visual/spatial modeling of some form (such as the virtual worlds stuff Novamente is doing), but _something_. Otherwise you're just setting a trap for yourself. ----- 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=60726582-557b6e
