Pei (2) A true AGI should have the potential to learn any natural
Pei language (though not necessarily to the level of native
Pei speakers).
This embodies an implicit assumption about language which is worth
noting.
It is possible that the nature of natural language is such that humans
could
Thats a totally different problem, and considering the massive knowledge whole currently about how the human brain works, we would have some major problems in that area, though it is interesting. One other problem there, what about two way communications? You are proposing to have the brain talk
On 10/31/06, John Scanlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Russell Wallace wrote:
Syntactic ambiguity isn't the problem. The reason computers don't
understand English is nothing to do with syntax, it's because they
don't understand the world.
It's easy to parse The cat sat on the mat into
sentence
verb sit /verb
subject cat
Hi,
Im currently
studying econometric methods... those are supposed to find patterns in series
of variables.
There are other
approaches for finding patterns in data, like neural networks.
What I wonder is, a
neural network could do the job of econometric methods?
Any ideas?
- Original Message
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:26:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [agi] Natural versus formal AI interface languages
Here is how I intend to use Lojban++ in teaching Novamente. When
Novamente is controlling a
Yes, teaching an AI in Esperanto would make more sense than teaching
it in English ... but, would not serve the same purpose as teaching it
in Lojban++ and a natural language in parallel...
In fact, an ideal educational programme would probably be to use, in parallel
-- an Esperanto-based,
On 11/2/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei Wang wrote:
On 11/2/06, Eric Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moreover, I argue that language is built on top of a heavy inductive
bias to develop a certain conceptual structure, which then renders the
names of concepts highly
Eliezer unless P != NP and the concepts are genuinely encrypted. And
I am of course assuming P != NP, which seems to me a safe assumption.
If P = NP, and mind exploits that fact (which I don't believe) then
we are at a serious handicap in producing an AGI till we understand
why P = NP, but it
I don't know enough about Novamente to say if your approach would work. Using
an artificial language as part of the environment (as opposed to a substitute
for natural language) does seem to make sense.
I think an interesting goal would be to teach an AGI to write software. If I
understand
Hi,
I think an interesting goal would be to teach an AGI to write software. If I
understand your explanation, this is the same problem.
Yeah, it's the same problem.
It's a very small step from Lojban to a programming language, and in
fact Luke Kaiser and I have talked about making a
On 11/2/06, Eric Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Pei's comments are in some sense wishes. To be charitable--
maybe I should say beliefs supported by his experience.
But they are not established facts. It remains a possibility,
supported by reasonable evidence,
that language learning may be an
Hi.
It's a very small step from Lojban to a programming language, and in
fact Luke Kaiser and I have talked about making a programming language
syntax based on Lojban, using his Speagram program interpreter
framework.
The nice thing about Lojban is that it does have the flexibility to be
used
Luke wrote:
It seems to be like this: when you start programming, even though the
syntax is still natural, the language gets really awkward and does not
resemble the way you would express the same thing naturally. For me it
just shows that the real problem is somewhere deeper, in the semantic
14 matches
Mail list logo
