pointers. Thanks.
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Paul Van Belle
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach
discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think
Wednesday, June 6, 2007, James Ratcliff wrote:
JR Which exact aspect are you relying on and how are you implementing it?
JR The main thin is the restriction on domain, all of his scripts were very
limiting, IE if you used a restaurant script and anything out of the ordinary
happened, it would
Which exact aspect are you relying on and how are you implementing it?
Wow. That would take a long time to explain . . . . soon (I hope)
The main thin is the restriction on domain, all of his scripts were very
limiting, IE if you used a restaurant script and anything out of the
ordinary
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 11:11:53 am James Ratcliff wrote:
The main thin is the restriction on domain, all of [Schank's] scripts were
very limiting, IE if you used a restaurant script and anything out of the
ordinary happened, it would break. It was very fragile in this fashion, and
such,
I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban
as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous
way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in
ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very
little about sign language,
On 6/5/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban
as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous
way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in
ordinary English language also applies to sign
Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put -
take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , causeand
because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in
practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the
Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put -
take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and
because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in
practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the
Actually, information theory would argue that if the more compactness was
driven by having less information due to a low transmission speed/bandwidth,
then you would likely have more ambiguity (i.e. less information on the
receiving side) not less.
Also, there have been numerous studies
As I understand it, true sign language (e.g. ASL) has its own syntax and to
some extent tis own vocabulary. The slowness sign language is almost
entirely in those artificial variants where there has been an attempt to
transliterate the spoken language into a set of gestures. Natively signed
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 11:49:11 am Mark Waser wrote:
Also, there have been numerous studies comparing spoken and sign languages
in terms of sentence structure. The most interesting ones (for both spoken
and sign) are the ones dealing with languages that are invented by small
groups who
Hi Mike
Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info.
And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need
to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with
Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with
And the Simple / Basic english provides for breaking up of many complex
compound sentences, for shorter structures, that even without the vocabulary
reduction increases the ability to parse sentences greatly.
There is even a Simple English wikipedia, though it seems to lack many articles
and
-
the impossibility of programming (in any conventional sense) a mind to handle
them.
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Paul Van Belle
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Hi Mike
Just Google 'Ogden
of programming (in any conventional sense) a mind to handle
them.
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Paul Van Belle
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Hi Mike
Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English
list readers should check old discredited approaches first
Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of
research petered out?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
I wouldnt say discredited, though he has went off to study education more
instead of AI now.
Good article on Conceptual Reasoning
http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/concept.shtml
His SAM project was very interesting with Scripts back in '75, but for a very
limited domain.
My project has the
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 02:47:27 pm Mark Waser wrote:
list readers should check old discredited approaches first
Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of
research petered out?
I think Schank's stuff was quite sound at its level but was abstract enough
(at
Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach
discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think he got much closer
than most of the GOFAIers i.e. he's one of my old school AI heroes :) I thought
for a long time his approach was one of the quickest ways to AGI
some pointers. Thanks.
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach
discredited
20 matches
Mail list logo
