On 2/17/08, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Before you embark on such a project, it might be worth first looking > > closely at the question of why Cyc hasn't been useful, so that you > > don't end up making the same mistakes. > > This is perhaps a good opportunity to poll you on why do you think Cyc > KB hasn't been useful / successful, I'm interested in "grounded > opinions" (Stephen?), and not about Cyc as an AGI but about Cyc KB as > what it was supposed to be (e.g. a universal backbone so that expert > systems didn't fall off the knowledge cliff). Yes, I'd like to hear others' opinion on Cyc. Personally I don't think it's the perceptual grounding issue -- grounding can be added incrementally later. I think Cyc (the KB) is on the right track, but it doesn't have enough rules.
YKY ------------------------------------------- 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
