YKY, > > I believe I've solved the fundamental issues behind the Novamente/OpenCog > > design... > > It's hard to tell whether you have really solved the AGI problem, at > this stage. ;)
Understood... > Also, your AGI framework has a lot of non-standard, home-brew stuff > (especially the knowledge representation and logic). I bet there are > some merits in your system, but is it really so compelling that > everybody has to learn it and do it that way? I don't claim that the Novamente/OpenCog design is the **only** way ... but I do note that the different parts are carefully designed to interoperate together in subtle ways, so replacing any one component w/ some standard system won't work. For instance, replacing PLN with some more popular but more limited probabilistic logic framework, would break a lot of other stuff... > Creating a standard / common framework is not easy. Right now I think > we lack such a consensus. So the theorists are not working together. One thing that stuck out at the 2006 AGI Workshop and AGI-08 conference, was the commonality between several different approaches, for instance -- my Novamente approach -- Nick Cassimatis's Polyscheme system -- Stan Franklin's LIDA approach -- Sam Adams (IBM) Joshua Blue -- Alexei Samsonovich's BICA architecture Not that these are all the same design ... there are very real differences ... but there are also a lot of deep parallels. Novamente seems to be more fully fleshed out than these overall, but each of these guys has thought through specific aspects more deeply than I have. Also, John Laird (SOAR creator) is moving SOAR in a direction that's a lot closer to the Goertzel/Cassimatis/Franklin/Adams style system than his prior approaches ... All the above approaches are -- integrative, involving multiple separate components tightly bound together in a high-level cognitive architecture -- reliant to some extent on formal inference (along with subsymbolic methods) -- clearly testable/developable in a virtual worlds setting I would bet that with appropriate incentives all of the above researchers could be persuaded to collaborate on a common AI project -- without it degenerating into some kind of useless committee-think... Let's call these approaches LIVE, for short -- Logic-incorporating, Integrative, Virtually Embodied On the other hand, when you look at -- Pei Wang's approach, which is interesting but is fundamentally committed to a particular form of uncertain logic that no other AGI approach accepts -- Selmer Bringsjord's approach, which is founded on the notion that standard predicate logic alone is The Answer -- Hugo de Garis's approach which is based on brain emulation you're looking at interesting approaches that are not really compatible with the LIVE approach ... I'd say, you could not viably bring these guys into a collaborative AI project based on the LIVE approach... So, I do think more collaboration and co-thinking could occur than currently does ... but also that there are limits due to fundamentally different understandings OpenCog is general enough to support any approach falling within the LIVE category, and a number of other sorts of approaches as well (e.g. a variety of neural net based architectures). But it is not **completely** general and doesn't aim to me ... IMO, a completely general AGI development framework is just basically, say, "C++ and Linux" ;-) -- 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
