Oops!
The William Blake poem recited in the Dangerous Knowledge BBC program was
not "Infinity" (that's what Cantor was so concerned about). It was
"Auguries of Innocence." The passage used in the program (and the one
"borrowed" by Sting) was:
"To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How much will you focus on natural language? It sounds like you want
> that to be fairly minimal at first. My opinion is that chatbot-type
> programs are not such a bad place to start-- if only because it is
> good publici
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me the main limitation is that the language model has to be
> described formally in Cycl, as a lexicon and rules for parsing and
> disambiguation. There seems to be no mechanism for learning natural language
Thank you. The detailed info is appreciated.
--Abram
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt said:
> The overview claims to be able to convert natural language sentences into
> Cycl assertions, and to convert questions to Cycl queries. So I wonder why
> th
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you. The detailed info is appreciated.
I'm planning to make the project opensource, but I want to have a web
site that keeps a record of contributors' contributions. So that's
taking some extra time.
YKY
-
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM, David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, It's been my hunch for some time that the richness and importance
> of Hellen Keller's sensational environment is frequently grossly
> underestimated. The sensations of a deaf/blind person still include
> proprioce
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:23 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > How much will you focus on natural language? It sounds like you want
> > that to be fairly minimal at first. My opinion is that chatb
Ben gave the following examples that demonstrate the ambiguity of the
preposition "with":
People eat food with forks
People eat food with friend[s]
People eat food with ketchup
The Texai bootstrap English dialog system, whose grammar rule engine I'm
currently rewriting, uses elaboration and
Stephen,
Yes, I think your spreading-activation approach makes sense and has plenty
of potential.
Our approach in OpenCog is actually pretty similar, given that our
importance-updating dynamics can be viewed as a nonstandard sort of
spreading activation...
I think this kind of approach can work,
Interestingly, Helen Keller's story provides a compelling example of what it
means for a symbol to go from ungrounded to grounded. Specifically, the moment
at the water pump when she realized that the word "water" being spelled into
her hand corresponded with her experience of water - that mome
Ben and Stephen,
AFAIK your focus - and the universal focus - in this debate on how and whether
language can be symbolically/logically interpreted - is on *individual words
and sentences.* A natural place to start. But you can't stop there - because
the problems, I suggest, (hard as they alrea
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> How does Stephen or YKY or anyone else propose to "read between the lines"?
> And what are the basic "world models", "scripts", "frames" etc etc. that you
> think sufficient to apply in understanding any set of texts, even
I wish I had ever written enough glue around ConceptNet to contribute
something to this discussion because apparently some or all of Cyc's
KB is in there. Its natural-language faculties are pretty extensive,
chopping up English speech into entities, adjectives, prepositions,
subject-event pairs and
--- On Sun, 9/28/08, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recently, someone on this list (I apologize for not making a
> note of this person's name) raised the question whether we might
> find a "shortcut" to AGI.
That was me.
> The author went on to opine that, because the problems associ
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Parsing English sentences into sets of formal-logic relationships is not
> extremely hard given current technology.
>
> But the only feasible way to do it, without making AGI breakthroughs
> first, is to accept that these f
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point for YKY was (as you know) not that this is an impossible problem
> but that it's a fairly deep AI problem which is not provided out-of-the-box
> in any existing NLP toolkit. Solving disambiguation thoroughly is AG
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It uses something called MontyLingua. Does anyone know anything about
> this? There's a site at http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/
> and it is for Python.
>
The NLTK toolkit is actively developed, have a look at i
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It uses something called MontyLingua. Does anyone know anything about
> > this? There's a site at
> > http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/monty
Thanks! Fascinating
On 9/29/08, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It uses something called MontyLingua. Does anyone know anything about
>> this? There's a site at http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:03 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Parsing English sentences into sets of formal-logic relationships is not
> > extremely hard given current technology.
> >
> > But the onl
>
>
> I mean that a more productive approach would be to try to understand why
> the problem is so hard.
IMO Richard Loosemore is half-right ... the reason AGI is so hard has to do
with Santa Fe Institute style
complexity ...
Intelligence is not fundamentally grounded in any particular mechanis
Mike asked:
How does Stephen or YKY or anyone else propose to "read between the lines"?
And what are the basic "world models", "scripts", "frames" etc etc. that you
think sufficient to apply in understanding any set of texts, even a relatively
specialised set?
Interesting that this question
David,
Thanks for reply. Like so many other things, though, working out how we
understand texts is central to understanding GI - and something to be done
*now*. I've just started looking at it, but immediately I can see that what the
mind does - how it jumps around in time and space and POV and
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7933698775159827395&ei=Z1rhSJz7CIvw-QHQyNkC&q=nltk&vt=lf
NLTK video ;O
On 9/29/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David,
>
> Thanks for reply. Like so many other things, though, working out how we
> understand texts is central to understanding GI
Eric,
Thanks for link. Flipping through quickly, it still seemed sentence-based.
Here's an example of time flipping - "fast-forwarding" text - and the kind
of jumps that the mind can make
"AGI Year One. "AGI is one of the great technological challenges. We believe
we have the basic technolog
Yes, NLTK is a narrow-AI NLP system, it's not an AGI with general conceptual
or commonsense understanding
Whether the tools in NLTK could be used as part of an AGI system is, of
course, another question...
ben
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Eric,
>
>
Extracting meaning from text requires context-sensitivity to do
correctly. Natural language parsers necessarily don't reason about
things. An AGI whose natural-language interface was abstracted via
some good parser could make suppositions about the constructs it
returned by interpreting them inside
Stephen,
One thing worth commenting on here is what seems to be your
"non-developmental" concept of language acquisition.
The way humans acquire language is precisely by starting not by reading
Wikipedia but by mastering "fiction-like" sentences with simple subjects and
simple actions and rel
*in an ,_,
On 9/29/08, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Extracting meaning from text requires context-sensitivity to do
> correctly. Natural language parsers necessarily don't reason about
> things. An AGI whose natural-language interface was abstracted via
> some good parser could make su
>
> Cognitive linguistics also lacks a true deveopmental model of language
> acquisition that goes beyond the first few years of life, and can embrace
> all those several - and, I'm quite sure, absolutely necessary - stages of
> mastering language and building a world picture.
>
Tomassello's theo
Mike,
Linguists have certainly thought a lot about the structure of passages, e.g.
rhetorical structure theory deals with this... and there have been attempts
at AI story understanding systems. But as Dave Hart noted, the technology
is not there yet... and it doesn't seem to many researchers to m
Mike,
If your question is directed toward the general AI community (rather
then the people on this list), the answer is a definite YES. It was
some time ago, and as far as I know the line of research has been
dropped, yet the results are to this day quite surprisingly good (I
think). The following
Ben,
Er, you seem to be confirming my point. Tomasello from Wiki is an early child
development psychologist. I want a model that keeps going to show the stages of
language acquistion from say 7-13, on through teens, and into the twenties -
that shows at what stages we understand progressiv
As I recall Tomassello's "Constructing a Language" deals with all the phases
of grammar learning including complex recursive phrase structure grammar...
But it doesn't trace language learning from the teens into the twenties,
no...
>From a psychological point of view, that is an interesting topic
I take it back, the field is still alive. Interesting.
http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~mueller/storyund/storyres.html
--Abram Demski
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> If your question is directed toward the general AI community (rather
> then the pe
Mike said:
The way humans acquire language is precisely by starting not by reading
Wikipedia but by mastering "fiction-like" sentences with simple subjects and
simple actions and relationships - like "John sit" "John eat" "Jack like Jill.
Me give Jill soap" etc. -based primarily in the her
Abram,
Yes, I'm aware of Schank - and failed to reference him. I think though that
that approach signally failed. And you give a good reason - it requires too
much knowledge entry. And that is part of my point. On the surface,
language passages can appear to be relatively simple, but actually
> My guess is that Schank and AI generally start from a technological POV,
> conceiving of *particular* approaches to texts that they can implement,
> rather than first attempting a *general* overview.
I can't speak for Schank, who was however working a long time ago when
cognitive science was l
2008/9/29 YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm planning to make the project opensource, but I want to have a web
> site that keeps a record of contributors' contributions. So that's
> taking some extra time.
Most wiki's automatically keep tracl of who made
what changes, when.
*All* sou
2008/9/29 Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ben gave the following examples that demonstrate the ambiguity of the
> preposition "with":
>
> People eat food with forks
>
> People eat food with friend[s]
>
> People eat food with ketchup
>
[...]
> how Texai would process Ben's examples. Accordin
2008/9/29 Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Stephen,
>
> Yes, I think your spreading-activation approach makes sense and has plenty
> of potential.
>
> Our approach in OpenCog is actually pretty similar, given that our
> importance-updating dynamics can be viewed as a nonstandard sort of
> spre
41 matches
Mail list logo
