YKY wrote: > I think Cyc failed mainly because their KB is not large enough to make > useful inferences. We need a huge KB indeed.
But if so, then doesn't this suggest the whole approach (hand-encoding of knowledge-items) is a bad path... Cyc's KB is already big and so many man-years were put into building it... If we need a KB orders of magnitude larger to make that approach work, doesn't that mean we should use another approach? Like, er, embodied learning or NL information extraction / conversation ... which have the potential to allow rules to be learned implicitly from experience rather than explicitly via human hard-coding... I don't understand why, if you think Cyc's KB is too small but their knowledge representation is basically right, you would want to start a Cyc-like project without billion-dollar funding. Do you really think you're going to get random folks online to enter lots of knowledge accurately in a logical formalism? It takes a lot of training to accurately enter knowledge in this way. The small percentage of the population who has this training, has better things to do than spend large amounts of time formally encoding knowledge... and generally these people are busy with paying jobs... It just doesn't seem a pragmatically feasible approach, setting aside all my doubts about the AI viability of it (i.e., I'm not so sure that even if you spent a billion dollars on hand-coding of rules, this would be all that helpful for AGI, in the absence of a learning engine radically different in nature from typical logical reasoning engines...) -- 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
