On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Most people on this list should know about at least 3 uncertain logics > claiming to be AGI-grade (or close): > > --Pie Wang's NARS
Yes, I heard of this guy a few times, who happens to use the same name for his project as mine. ;-) > Here is my list: > > 1. Well-defined uncertainty semantics (either probability theory or a > well-argued alternative) Agree, and I'm glad that you mentioned this item first. > 2. Good at quick-and-dirty reasoning when needed > --a. Makes unwarranted independence assumptions > --b. Collapses probability distributions down to the most probable > item when necessary for fast reasoning > --c. Uses the maximum entropy distribution when it doesn't have time > to calculate the true distribution > --d. Learns simple conditional models (like 1st-order markov models) > for use later when full models are too complicated to quickly use As you admitted in the following, the language is biased. Using theory-neutral language, I'd say the requirement is "to derive conclusions with available knowledge and resources only", which sounds much better than "quick-and-dirty" to me. > 3. Capable of "repairing" initial conclusions based on the bad models > through further reasoning > --a. Should have a good way of representing the special sort of > uncertainty that results from the methods above > --b. Should have a "repair" algorithm based on that higher-order uncertainty As soon as you don't assume there is a "model", this item and the above one become similar, which are what I called "revision" and "inference", respectively, in http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/wang.uncertainties.ps > The 3 logics mentioned above vary in how well they address these > issues, of course, but they are all essentially descended from NARS. > My impression is that as a result they are strong in (2a) and (3b) at > least, but I am not sure about the rest. (Of course, it is hard to > evaluate NARS on most of the points in #2 since I stated them in the > language of probability theory. And, opinions will differ on (1).) > > Anyone else have lists? Or thoughts? If you consider approaches with various scope and maturity, there are much more than these three approaches, and I'm sure most of people working on them will claim that they are also "general purpose". Interested people may want to browse http://www.auai.org/ and http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505787/description#description Pei ------------------------------------------- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
