On 2/17/08, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
Thanks, I'll read it and give you some feedback later. But I'm interested in how AGI can be achieved collaboratively, and sharing KBs is one possiblity, and may be very important. Sure, you can go it alone, but that may not be the best choice. > 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. Sorry... I can't see the distinction. Maybe you mean causation vs implication? For example, eating sweets may cause cavities, but it is not an implication because P(cavities|sweets) != 1? What I mean by "rule" is any formula that has variables in it. The kind of rules I have in mind... let me give an example. One day I opened the microwave and saw a dish of raw fish inside. I abductively conclude that my mom has put a frozen fish inside to defrost it but was too lazy to wait till it finished to take it out. In order to do this reasoning I need the following facts: 1. the microwave is normally empty when not in use 2. humans can move things around 3. defrosting takes time 4. waiting for the fish to defrost is boring 5. putting the fish inside and forgeting to press the cook button is unlikely because the 2 actions occur closely 6. forgetfulness usually require a substantial time interval 7. etc etc... Obviously the current Cyc KB do not have these facts. That's why I say more facts are needed. Secondly, I suspect that some "implicit rules" are needed for an inference engine to string these facts together to form a linear proof -- if you get my drift. But I find it hard to explain... 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
