Hi, > I think Ben's text mining approach has one big flaw: it can only reason > about existing knowledge, but cannot generate new ideas using words / > concepts.
Text mining is not an AGI approach, it's merely a possible way of getting knowledge into an AGI. Whether the AGI can generate new ideas is independent of whether it gets knowledge via text mining or via some other means... > I want to stress that AGI needs to be able to think at the > WORD/CONCEPT level. In order to do this, we need some rules that *rewrite* > sentences made up of words, such that the AGI can reason from one sentence > to another. Such rewrite rules are very numerous and can be very complex -- > for example rules for auxillary words and prepositions, etc. I'm not even > sure that such rules can be expressed in FOL easily -- let alone learn them! This seems "off" somehow -- I don't think reasoning should be implemented on the level of linguistic surface forms. > The embodiment approach provides an environment for learning qualitative > physics, but it's still different from the common sense domain where > knowledge is often verbally expressed. I don't get your point... Most of common sense is about the world in which we live, as embodied social organisms... Embodiment buys you a lot more than qualitative physics. It buys you richly shared social experience, among other things. > In fact, it's not the environment > that matters, it's the knowledge representation (whether it's expressive > enough) and the learning algorithm (how sophisticated it is). I think that all three of these things matter a lot, along with the overall cognitive architecture. -- 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
