On 3/5/08, david cash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, instead of having to cherry-pick desirable and
undesirable traits in an unconscious AGI entity, that we, of course, wish to
have consciousness and cognitive abilites like reasoning, deductive and
inductive logic comprehension skills,
On 3/4/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
An excellent point. But what if the
On 3/4/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
to the specific intended meaning of any words that are possibly
ambiguous? That would seem to be the best of both worlds.
- Original Message -
From: YKY (Yan King Yin)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use
On 04/03/2008, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
An excellent point. But what if the
Dead right (in an ambiguous way :) )
Basically an AGI without open-ended concepts will never live in the real world.
I should add that I don't believe early, true AGI's *will* be anywhere near
capable of natural language. All they will need is one or more systems of
open-ended concepts.
In my opinion, instead of having to cherry-pick desirable and undesirable
traits in an unconscious AGI entity, that we, of course, wish to have
consciousness and cognitive abilites like reasoning, deductive and inductive
logic comprehension skills, emotional traits, compassion, ethics, street
want to use a commonsense KB?
On 04/03/2008, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On 2/28/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Ben's text mining approach has one big flaw: it can
only reason about existing knowledge, but cannot generate new ideas using
words / concepts
There is a substantial amount of literature that claims that *humans*
can't generate new
that might classify as a knife - as well as new ways of handling them - which
could be useful, for example, when in danger).
- Original Message -
From: YKY (Yan King Yin)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use
On 3/4/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good example, but how about: language is open-ended, period and capable of
infinite rather than myriad interpretations - and that open-endedness is
the whole point of it?.
Simple example much like yours : handle. You can attach words for
objects
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
Ben Goertzel wrote:
yet I still feel you dismiss the text-mining approach too glibly...
No, but text mining requires a language model that learns while mining. You
can't mine the text first.
Agreed ... and this gets into subtle points. Which aspects of the
language model
need to be
My latest thinking tends to agree with Matt that language and common sense
are best learnt together. (Learning langauge before common sense
is impossible / senseless).
I think Ben's text mining approach has one big flaw: it can only reason
about existing knowledge, but cannot generate new ideas
Hi,
I think Ben's text mining approach has one big flaw: it can only reason
about existing knowledge, but cannot generate new ideas using words /
concepts.
Text mining is not an AGI approach, it's merely a possible way of getting
knowledge into an AGI.
Whether the AGI can generate new ideas
, 2008 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
My latest thinking tends to agree with Matt that language and common sense
are best learnt together. (Learning langauge before common sense is
impossible / senseless).
I think Ben's text mining approach has one
On 2/27/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY
I thought you were talking about the extraction of information that
is explicitly stated in online text.
Of course, inference is a separate process (though it may also play a
role in direct information extraction).
I don't think the
I'm not talking about inference control here -- I assume that inference
control is done in a proper way, and there will still be a problem. You
seem to assume that all knowledge = what is explicitly stated in online
texts. So you deny that there is a large body of implicit knowledge other
--- Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, suppose you ask an AI if chocolate makes a person more
alert.
It might read one article saying that coffee makes people more alert,
and another article saying that chocolate contains theobromine, and another
article saying that
It could be done with a simple chain of word associations mined from a text
corpus: alert - coffee - caffeine - theobromine - chocolate.
That approach yields way, way, way too much noise. Try it.
But that is not the problem. The problem is that the reasoning would be
faulty, even with
--- Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It could be done with a simple chain of word associations mined from a
text
corpus: alert - coffee - caffeine - theobromine - chocolate.
That approach yields way, way, way too much noise. Try it.
I agree that it does to the point of
yet I still feel you dismiss the text-mining approach too glibly...
No, but text mining requires a language model that learns while mining. You
can't mine the text first.
Agreed ... and this gets into subtle points. Which aspects of the
language model
need to be adapted while mining,
On 2/25/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
There is no good overview of SMT so far as I know, just some technical
papers... but SAT solvers are not that deep and are well reviewed in
this book...
http://www.sls-book.net/
But that's *propositional* satisfiability, the results may
Obviously, extracting knowledge from the Web using a simplistic SAT
approach is infeasible
However, I don't think it follows from this that extracting rich
knowledge from the Web is infeasible
It would require a complex system involving at least
1)
An NLP engine that maps each sentence into a
On 2/26/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, extracting knowledge from the Web using a simplistic SAT
approach is infeasible
However, I don't think it follows from this that extracting rich
knowledge from the Web is infeasible
It would require a complex system involving at
YKY
I thought you were talking about the extraction of information that
is explicitly stated in online text.
Of course, inference is a separate process (though it may also play a
role in direct information extraction).
I don't think the rules of inference per se need to be learned. In
our
-
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 9:13 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
Hi,
There is no good overview of SMT so far as I know, just some technical
papers... but SAT solvers are not that deep
YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comparing the problem at hand with SAT may not be very accurate. First, we
need to formulate the problem more clearly -- what exactly are we trying to do.
Then we can estimate whether it's feasible with available computing power.
Also,
relevant and/or relatively short inferences paths pass, or something like
that.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:54 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB
:54 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
And I seriously doubt that a general SMT solver +
prob. theory is going to beat a custom probabilistic logic solver.
My feeling is that an SMT solver plus appropriate subsets of prob
theory
can
short inferences paths pass, or something like
that.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:54 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
And I seriously
On 20/02/2008, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, looking at the moon, what color would you say it was?
As Edwin Land showed colour perception does not just depend upon the
wavelength of light, but is a subjective property actively constructed
by the brain.
On 2/19/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we need a KB orders of magnitude larger to make that approach work,
doesn't that mean we should use another approach?
But do you agree that a KB orders of magnitude larger is required for all
AGI, regardless of *how* the knowledge is
On 20/02/2008, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
E is also hard, but you seem to be *unaware* of its difficulty. In fact,
the problem with E is the same as that with AIXI -- the thoery is elegant,
but the actual learning would take forever. Can you explain, in broad
terms, how the
C is not very viable as of now. The physics in Second Life is simply not
*rich* enough. SL is mainly a space for humans to socialize, so the physics
will not get much richer in the near future -- is anyone interested in
emulating cigarette smoke in SL?
Second Life will soon be integrating
Water does not always run downhill, sometimes it runs uphill.
But never without a reason.
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
C
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me list all the ways of AGI knowledge acquisition:
A) manual encoding in logical form
B) manual teaching in NL and pictures
C) learning in virtual reality (eg Second Life)
D) embodied learning (eg computer vision)
E) inductive
On Feb 20, 2008 1:34 PM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking at the moon won't help --
of course it helps, it tells you that something odd is with the expression,
as opposed to say yellow sun ...
it might be the case that it described a
particular appearance that only had a
Looking at the moon won't help -- it might be the case that it described a
particular appearance that only had a slight resemblance to other blue things
(as in red hair), for example. There are some rare conditions (high
stratospheric dust) which can make the moon look actually blue.
In fact
So, looking at the moon, what color would you say it was?
Here's what text mining might give you (Google hits):
blue moon 11,500,000
red moon 1,670,000
silver moon 1,320,000
yellow moon 712,000
white moon 254,000
golden moon 163,000
orange moon 122,000
green moon 105,000
gray moon 9,460
To me,
There seems to be an assumption in this thread that NLP analysis
of text is restricted to simple statistical extraction of word-sequences...
This is not the case...
If there were to be a hope for AGI based on text analysis, it would have
to be based on systems that parse linguistic expressions
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 02:58:54 pm, Ben Goertzel wrote:
I note also that a web-surfing AGI could resolve the color of the moon
quite easily by analyzing online pictures -- though this isn't pure
text mining, it's in the same spirit...
U -- I just typed moon into google and at the
As I am sure you are fully aware, you can't parse English without a knowledge
of the meanings involved. (The council opposed the demonstrators because
they (feared/advocated) violence.) So how are you going to learn meanings
before you can parse, or how are you going to parse before you
--- Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I am sure you are fully aware, you can't parse English without a
knowledge
of the meanings involved. (The council opposed the demonstrators because
they (feared/advocated) violence.) So how are you going to learn
meanings
before you can
Yes, of course, but no human except an expert in lunar astronomy would have
a definitive answer to the question either
The issue at hand is really how a text-analysis based AGI would distinguish
literal from metaphoric text, and how it would understand the context in which
a statement is
--- Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I note also that a web-surfing AGI could resolve the color of the moon
quite easily by analyzing online pictures -- though this isn't pure
text mining, it's in the same spirit...
Not really. You can get a better answer to what color is the moon? if
OK, imagine a lifetime's experience is a billion symbol-occurences. Imagine
you have a heuristic that takes the problem down from NP-complete (which it
almost certainly is) to a linear system, so there is an N^3 algorithm for
solving it. We're talking order 1e27 ops.
Now using HEPP = 1e16 x 30
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, imagine a lifetime's experience is a billion symbol-occurences. Imagine
you have a heuristic that takes the problem down from NP-complete (which it
almost certainly is) to a linear system, so there is an N^3
On 2/21/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feeding all the ambiguous interpretations of a load of sentences into
a probabilistic
logic network, and letting them get resolved by reference to each
other, is a sort of
search for the most likely solution of a huge system of simultaneous
A PROBABILISTIC logic network is a lot more like a numerical problem than a
SAT problem.
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 04:41:51 pm, Ben Goertzel wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
OK, imagine a lifetime's experience is a billion
Not necessarily, because
--- one can encode a subset of the rules of probability as a theory in
SMT, and use an SMT solver
-- one can use probabilities to guide the search within an SAT or SMT solver...
ben
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A
Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM, J
Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
OK, imagine a lifetime's experience is a billion symbol-occurences. Imagine
you have a heuristic that takes the problem down from NP-complete (which it
almost certainly is) to a linear system,
To get back to Ben's statement: Is the computer chip industry happy with
contemporary SAT solvers
Well they are using them, but of course there is loads of room for improvement!!
or would a general solver that is capable of
beating n^4 time be of some use to them? If it would be useful, then
And I seriously doubt that a general SMT solver +
prob. theory is going to beat a custom probabilistic logic solver.
My feeling is that an SMT solver plus appropriate subsets of prob theory
can be a very powerful component of a general probabilistic inference
framework...
I can back this up
It's probably not worth too much taking this a lot further, since we're
talking in analogies and metaphors. However, it's my intuition that the
connectivity in a probabilistic formulation is going to produce a much denser
graph (less sparse matrix) than what you find in the SAT problems that
On 2/19/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei: Resolution-based FOL on a huge KB is intractable.
Agreed.
However Cycorp spend a great deal of programming effort (i.e. many
man-years) finding deep inference paths for common queries. The strategies
were:
prune the rule set according
On 2/19/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would this approach succeed where Cyc failed? Cyc paid people to
build
the knowledge base. Then when they couldn't sell it, the tried giving it
away. Still, nobody used it.
For an AGI to be useful, people have to be able to communicate
On 2/19/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A purely resolution-based inference engine is mathematically elegant,
but completely impractical, because after all the knowledge are
transformed into the clause form required by resolution, most of the
semantic information in the knowledge
On Feb 19, 2008 8:49 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/19/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A purely resolution-based inference engine is mathematically elegant,
but completely impractical, because after all the knowledge are
transformed into the clause form
On Feb 19, 2008 2:41 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think resolution theorem proving provides a way to answer yes/no queries
in a KB. I take it as a starting point, and try to think of ways to speed
it up and to expand its abilities (answering what/where/when/who/how
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:41:06 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
[snip]Thanks a lot for the info. These are very important speed-up strategies.
I
On 19/02/2008, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we need a KB orders of magnitude larger to make that approach work,
doesn't that mean we should use another approach?
Yes.
Like, er, embodied learning or NL information extraction / conversation ...
which have the potential to allow
On Feb 17, 2008 9:42 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far I've been using resolution-based FOL, so there's only 1 inference
rule and this is not a big issue. If you're using nonstandard inference
rules, perhaps even approximate ones, I can see that this distinction is
All of these rules have exception or implicit condition. If you
treat them as default rules, you run into multiple extension
problem, which has no domain-independent solution in binary logic ---
read http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/wang.reference_classes.ps for
details.
Pei
On Feb 17, 2008
On 18/02/2008, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the idea is to ask lots of people to contribute to the KB, and pay
them with virtual credits. (I expect such people to have a little knowledge
in logic or Prolog, so they can enter complex rules. Also, they can be
assisted by
All of these rules have exception or implicit condition. If you
treat them as default rules, you run into multiple extension
problem, which has no domain-independent solution in binary logic ---
read http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/wang.reference_classes.ps for
details.
Pei,
Do you have a
Just put one at http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.reference_classes.pdf
On Feb 18, 2008 9:01 AM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of these rules have exception or implicit condition. If you
treat them as default rules, you run into multiple extension
problem, which has no
I believe I offered the beginning of a v. useful way to conceive of this
whole area in an earlier post.
The key concept is inventory of the world.
First of all, what is actually being talked about here is only a
VERBAL/SYMBOLIC KB.
One of the grand illusions of a literature culture is that
I should add to the idea of our common sense knowledge inventory of the
world - because my talk of objects and movements may make it all sound v.
physical and external. That common sense inventory also includes a vast
amount of non-verbal knowledge, paradoxically, about how we think and
On 2/18/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe I offered the beginning of a v. useful way to conceive of this
whole area in an earlier post.
The key concept is inventory of the world.
First of all, what is actually being talked about here is only a
VERBAL/SYMBOLIC KB.
One of
This raises another v. interesting dimension of KB's and why they are limited.
The social dimension. You might, purely for argument's sake, be able to name a
vast amount of unnamed parts of the world. But you would then have to secure
social agreement for them to become practically useful. Not
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:17:59 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
On Feb 17, 2008 9:42 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far
78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:17:59 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
On Feb 17, 2008 9:42 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/18/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh... I think you could give away read-only access and charge people to
update it. Information has negative value, you know.
Well, the idea is to ask lots of people to contribute to the
- Original Message
From: Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:47:43 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
Steve,
I also agree with what you said, and what Cyc uses is no longer
pure
resolution-based FOL
: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:47:43 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
Steve,
I also agree with what you said, and what Cyc uses is no longer pure
resolution-based FOL.
A purely resolution-based inference engine is mathematically elegant,
but completely
On Feb 17, 2008 9:56 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planning to collect commonsense knowledge into a large KB, in the form
of first-order logic, probably very close to CycL.
Before you embark on such a project, it might be worth first looking
closely at the question of why
On Feb 17, 2008 4:11 PM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 9:56 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planning to collect commonsense knowledge into a large KB, in the form
of first-order logic, probably very close to CycL.
Before you embark on such a
On Feb 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 9:56 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planning to collect commonsense knowledge into a large KB, in the form
of first-order logic, probably very close to CycL.
Before you embark on such a
On Feb 17, 2008 1:49 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be considered 'grounded' in some sense
Well, the intent of my statement is this: Maybe somewhere in the Cyc
knowledge base there's the assertion Eat(Cats, Mice) or equivalent,
but if you show Cyc a picture of a cat, a
As Lukasz just pointed out, there are two topics:
1. Cyc as an AGI project
2. Cyc as a knowledge base useful for AGI systems.
The grounding problem you raised maybe an issue for 1 (even that
depending on what intelligence is understood, and Lenat will argue
otherwise), but it is much less an
On 2/17/08, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Before you embark on such a project, it might be worth first looking
closely at the question of why Cyc hasn't been useful, so that you
don't end up making the same
In that sense, is a Wikipedia article grounded, if it doesn't
contain a photo? Can it be useful for us?
I mean, symbol grounding is indeed an important issue, but it
doesn't show up everywhere. A Cyc-like KB can be useful, if it use a
proper formal language, which allows its concepts to be
Yes, I'd like to hear others' opinion on Cyc. Personally I don't think it's
the perceptual grounding issue -- grounding can be added incrementally
later. I think Cyc (the KB) is on the right track, but it doesn't have
enough rules.
I do think it's possible a Cyc approach could work if one
1)
While in my own AI projects I am currently gravitating toward an approach
involving virtual-worlds grounding, as a general rule I don't think it's obvious
that sensorimotor grounding is needed for AGI. Certainly it's very useful, but
there is no strong argument that it's required. The human
On Feb 17, 2008 4:48 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1)
While in my own AI projects I am currently gravitating toward an approach
involving virtual-worlds grounding
And I think that's a very good idea.
as a general rule I don't think it's obvious
that sensorimotor grounding is
I agree, that might be a viable approach. But the key phrase is
Encode some simple knowledge, instruct the system in how to ground it
in its sensorimotor experience - i.e. you're _not_ spending a decade
writing a million assertions and _then_ looking for the first time at
the grounding
On Feb 17, 2008 5:27 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got to wonder if the masses of text on the Internet could, in themselves,
display a sufficient richness of patterns to obviate the need for grounding
in another domain like a physical or virtual world, or mathematics.
In
On 2/17/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no similar plan for OpenNARS. When the time comes, it
probably will get its knowledge, in a mixed manner, (1) from various
existing sources of formatted knowledge, including Cyc, (2) from the
Internet, using information
On Feb 17, 2008 12:56 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I raised this issue before: by logical rules, do you mean inference
rules (like Derive conclusion C from premises A and B), or
implication statements (like If A and B are true, then C is true)?
These two are very often
In other words, maybe what you think needs to be gotten from grounding
in a nonlinguistic domain, could somehow be gotten indirectly via grounding
in masses of text?
I am not confident this is feasible, nor that it isn't ... and it's
not the approach
I'm following ... but I'm
On Feb 17, 2008 6:32 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't assume that all successful AGI's must be humanlike...
Neither do I - on the contrary, I think a humanlike AGI isn't going to
happen, in the same way that we never did achieve birdlike flight.
But the only reason we have for
On Feb 17, 2008 7:37 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
water flows downhill site:wikipedia.org -- 4 results
water flows uphill site:wikipedia.org -- 2 results
BUT, both of the latter 2 results are within user talk pages, not regular
wikipedia entries... whereas all of the former
On 2/18/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I raised this issue before: by logical rules, do you mean inference
rules (like Derive conclusion C from premises A and B), or
implication statements (like If A and B are true, then C is true)?
These two are very often confused with each
Only statements containing in a KB as content have truth-value, or
need acceptance. An inference rule is part of the system, which just
applies, and does not need acceptance within the system. An inference
rule has no truth-value.
If it is still unclear, try this:
Mark Waser wrote:
I've got to wonder if the masses of text on the Internet could, in
themselves,
display a sufficient richness of patterns to obviate the need for
grounding
in another domain like a physical or virtual world, or mathematics.
A system is grounded if it's internal
On 2/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly suspect there is enough information in the
text online for an AGI to learn that water flows downhill in most
circumstances, without having explicit grounding...
I strongly suspect the contrary =) for the simple reason that adults
/blog
http://texai.org
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 3:56:40 AM
Subject: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
I'm planning
://texai.org
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:51:12 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?
On 2/17/08, Lukasz Stafiniak
IMHO Cyc was doomed by the lack of a natural language interface. It cannot
map between Eats(cats, mice) and cats eat mice, or recognize their
equivalence. In Cyc, cats and Eats are just labels used to help human
programmers enter facts. Without a natural language interface, it is very
expensive
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
