On 2/26/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obviously, extracting knowledge from the Web using a simplistic SAT > approach is infeasible > > However, I don't think it follows from this that extracting rich > knowledge from the Web is infeasible > > It would require a complex system involving at least > > 1) > An NLP engine that maps each sentence into a menu of probabilistically > weighted logical interpretations of the sentence (including links into > other sentences built using anaphor resolution heuristics). This > involves a dozen conceptually distinct components and is not at all > trivial to design, build or tune. > > 2) > Use of probabilistic inference rules to create implication links > between the different interpretations of the different sentences > > 3) > Use of an optimization algorithm (which could be a clever use of SAT > or SMT, or something else) to utilize the links formed in step 2, to > select the right interpretation(s) for each sentence
Gosh, I think you've missed something of critical importance... The problem you stated above is about choosing the correct interpretation of a bunch of sentences. The problem we should tackle instead, is learning the "rules" that make up the KB. To see the difference, let's consider this example: Suppose I solve a problem (eg a programming exercise), and to illustrate my train of thoughts I clearly write down all the steps. So I have, in English, a bunch of sentences A,B,C,...,Z where Z is the final conclusion sentence. Now the AGI can translate sentences A-Z into logical form. You claim that this problem is hard because of multiple interpretations. But I think that's relatively unimportant compared to the real problem we face. So let's assume that we successfully -- correctly -- translate the NL sentences into logic. Now let's imagine that the AGI is doing the exercise, not me. Then it should have a train of inference that goes from A to B to C ... and so on... to Z. But, the AGI would NOT be able to make such a train of thoughts. All it has is just a bunch of *static* sentences from A-Z. What is missing? What would allow the AGI to actually conduct the inference from A-Z? The missing ingredient is a bunch of rules. These are the "invisible glue" that links the thoughts "between the lines". This is the knowledge that I think should be learned, and would be very difficult to learn. You know what I'm talking about?? 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
