One of the major obstacles to real AI is the belief
thatknowledge ofa natural language is necessary for
intelligence. Ahuman-level intelligent system should be expected to
have the ability to learn a natural language, but it is not necessary. It
is better to start with a formal language,
The development of real AI is a progressive evolutionary process. The
ability to use natural languages, with even a minimum of fluency, is simply
beyond the capacity of any AI technology that exists today. A para-natural
language can communicate all the essential meanings of a natural
John Scanlon wrote:
One of the major obstacles to real AI is the belief that knowledge of a
natural language is necessary for intelligence. A human-level
intelligent system should be expected to have the ability to learn a
natural language, but it is not necessary. It is better to start with
Let's don't confuse two statements:
(1) To be able to use a natural language (so as to passing Turing
Test) is not a necessary condition for a system to be intelligent.
(2) A true AGI should have the potential to learn any natural language
(though not necessarily to the level of native
On 10/31/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess the AI problem is solved, then. I can already communicate with my
computer using formal, unambiguous languages. It already does a lot of
things better than most humans, like arithmetic, chess, memorizing long
lists and recalling them
I guess the AI problem is solved, then. I can already communicate with my computer using formal, unambiguous languages. It already does a lot of things better than most humans, like arithmetic, chess, memorizing long lists and recalling them perfectly...If a machine can't pass the Turing test,
John --
See
lojban.org
and
http://www.goertzel.org/papers/lojbanplusplus.pdf
-- Ben G
On 10/31/06, John Scanlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the major obstacles to real AI is the belief that knowledge of a
natural language is necessary for intelligence. A human-level intelligent
Hello,
I created a google co-op search on cognition and mind at the following
adress: http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012063233955606146991%3Adwsxidzld8s
Currently only the usual suspected websites are include. Some more high
quality sites would be great to improve its results. If you like to
In the para-natural formal language I've developed, called Jinnteera, I saw
the man with the telescope. would be expressed for each meaning in a
declarative phrase as:
1. I did see with a telescope the_man
2. I did see the man which did have a telescope
3. I saw with a telescope the_man or
Ben,
I did read your stuff on Lojban++, and it's the sort of language I'm
talking about. This kind of language lets the computer and the user meet
halfway. The computer can parse the language like any other computer
language, but the terms and constructions are designed for talking about
For comparison, here are some versions of
I saw the man with the telescope
in Lojban++ ...
[ http://www.goertzel.org/papers/lojbanplusplus.pdf ]
1)
mi pu see le man sepi'o le telescope
I saw the man, using the telescope as a tool
2)
mi pu see le man pe le telescope
I saw the man who was with
Hi,
Which brings up a question -- is it better to use a language based on
term or predicate logic, or one that imitates (is isomorphic to) natural
languages? A formal language imitating a natural language would have the
same kinds of structures that almost all natural languages have:
This looks exciting...
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=302type=expertpid=1
A system Intel is envisioning, with 100 tightly connected cores on a
chip, each with 32MB of local SRAM ...
This kind of hardware, it seems, would enable the implementation of a
powerful Novamente AGI system on a
For anyone in the DC area, the following event may be interesting...
Not directly AGI-relevant, but interesting in that one day virtual
worlds like Second Life may be valuable for AGI in terms of giving
them a place to play around and interact with humans, without need for
advanced robotics...
Pei Wang wrote:
Let's don't confuse two statements:
(1) To be able to use a natural language (so as to passing Turing
Test) is not a necessary condition for a system to be intelligent.
(2) A true AGI should have the potential to learn any natural language
(though not necessarily to the level
On 10/31/06, Hartmut Prochaska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I created a google co-op search on cognition and mind at the following
adress: http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012063233955606146991%3Adwsxidzld8s
Thanks. I was poking around and saw in the list of featured co-op
search sites,
Eliezer wrote:
Natural language isn't. Humans have one specific idiosyncratic
built-in grammar, and we might have serious trouble learning to
communicate in anything else - especially if the language was being used
by a mind quite unlike our own.
Well, some humans have learned to communicate
Artificial languages that remove ambiguity like Lojban do not bring us any
closer to solving the AI problem. It is straightforward to convert between
artificial languages and structured knowledge (e.g first order logic), but it
is still a hard (AI complete) problem to convert between natural
I know people can learn Lojban, just like they can learn Cycl or LISP. Lets
not repeat these mistakes. This is not training, it is programming a knowledge
base. This is narrow AI.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You seem not to understand the purpose of using Lojban to help teach an
Me, interviewed by R.U. Sirius, on AGI, the Singularity, philosophy of
mind/emotion/immortality and so forth:
http://mondoglobo.net/neofiles/?p=78
Audio only...
-- Ben
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
20 matches
Mail list logo
