> 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.
I do think it's possible a Cyc approach could work if one had a few
billion rules in there -- but so what? ("Work" meaning: together with a logic
engine, serve as the seed for an AGI that really learns and understands)
It's clear that the mere millions of rules in their KB now are VASTLY
inadequate in terms of scale...
Similarly, AIXItl or related approaches
could work for AGI if one had an insanely powerful computer -- but so what
AGI approaches that "could work, in principle" if certain wildly infeasible
conditions were met, are not hard to come by ... ;=)
-- Ben G
-------------------------------------------
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
