> Sure, AGI needs to handle NL in an open-ended way. But the question is > whether the internal knowledge representation of the AGI needs to allow > ambiguities, or should we use an ambiguity-free representation. It seems > that the latter choice is better. Otherwise, the knowledge stored in > episodic memory would be open to interpretations and may need to errors in > recall, and similar problems.
Rather, I think the right goal is to create an AGI that, in each context, can be as ambiguous as it wants/needs to be in its representation of a given piece of information. Ambiguity allows compactness, and can be very valuable in this regard. Guidance on this issue is provided by the Lojban language. Lojban allows extremely precise expression, but also allows ambiguity as desired. What one finds when speaking Lojban is that sometimes one chooses ambiguity because it lets one make ones utterances shorter. I think the same thing holds in terms of an AGI's memory. An AGI with finite memory resources must sometimes choose to represent relatively unimportant information ambiguously rather than precisely so as to conserve memory. For instance, storing the information "A is associated with B" is highly ambiguous, but takes little memory. Storing logical information regarding the precise relationship between A and B may take one or more orders of magnitude more information. -- Ben ------------------------------------------- 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
