On Feb 17, 2008 4:56 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm planning to collect commonsense knowledge into a large KB, in the form
> of first-order logic, probably very close to CycL.  Would current AGI
> projects (OpenNARS, OpenCog, Texai, etc) find it useful?  Or would you
> prefer to collect commonsense on your own?

It will surely be useful, though given the restriction of first-order
(predicate) logic, it probably won't be very useful.

If it is very close to CycL, what will be the point of doing it?

There is no similar plan for OpenNARS. When the time comes, it
probably will get its knowledge, in a mixed manner, (1) from various
existing sources of formatted knowledge, including Cyc, (2) from the
Internet, using information retrieval/extraction, data mining, etc.,
(3) through a natural language interface, (4) through a sensorimotor
interface, (5) by human tutoring. The last approach will require
manually coded knowledge (commonsense or not), but in a much smaller
scale. See http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.roadmap.pdf

> It seems that the Cyc KB is focused on building an ontology (hence a lot of
> "is_a" relations), and there's not enough emphasis on "other logical rules".
> I anticipate that AGIs will need plenty of such rules.

I raised this issue before: by "logical rules", do you mean inference
rules (like "Derive conclusion C from premises A and B"), or
implication statements (like "If A and B are true, then C is true")?
These two are very often confused with each other, and that confusion
has serious consequences. AGI needs plenty of the latter, but just a
relatively small number of the former.

Pei

> YKY
>  ________________________________
>
>  agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription

-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to