--- On Mon, 6/2/08, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > YKY, how are you going to solve the natural language > interface problem? You seem to be going down the same path > as CYC. What is different about your system? > > One more point: > > Yes, my system is similar to Cyc in that it's logic-based. But of > course, it will be augmented with probabilities and > fuzziness, in some ways yet to be figured out.
I believe NARS models probabilities and uses induction to adjust them. However, NARS is years from design completion, and then there is the small matter of building the knowledge base (ala Cyc). > I guess your idea is that the language model should be the basis of > the AGI, whereas my idea is that AGI should be based on logical > representation. The difference may not be as great as you think. > > You may think that natural language is "fluid" and therefore more > suitable for AGI as compared to logic. Let me point out that logic, > equipped with learning, can be equally "fluid". Do you have any insights on how this learning will be done? Cyc put a lot of effort into a natural language interface and failed. What approach will you use that they have not tried? FOL requires a set of transforms, e.g. "All men are mortal" -> "forall X, man(X) -> mortal(X)" (hard) "Socrates is a man" -> "(man(Socrates)" (hard) -> "mortal(Socrates)" (easy) -> "Socrates is mortal" (hard). We have known for a long time how to solve the easy parts. The hard parts are AI-complete. You have to solve AI before you can learn the knowledge base. Then after you build it, you won't need it. What is the point? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
