Your inference trajectory assumes that "cybersex" and "STD" are probabilistically independent within "sex" but this is not the case.
PLN would make this error using the independence-assumption-based term logic deduction rule; but in practice this rule is supposed to be overridden in cases of known dependencies. ben On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:04 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is an example of a problematic inference: > > 1. Mary has cybersex with many different partners > 2. Cybersex is a kind of sex > 3. Therefore, Mary has many sex partners > 4. Having many sex partners -> high chance of getting STDs > 5. Therefore, Mary has a high chance of STDs > > What's wrong with this argument? It seems that a general rule is > involved in step 4, and that rule can be "refined" with some > qualifications (ie, it does not apply to all kinds of sex). But the > question is, how can an AGI detect that an exception to a general rule > has occurred? > > Or, do we need to explicitly state the exceptions to every rule? > > Thanks for any comments! > YKY > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
