sorry if this has been asked and answered above... I was looking around opencog documentation last week, checking it out. Is there anything that I can download and run yet? I recall looking but it not really coming up with anything. Mike A
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> A description of Ruiting Lian's current NLP development work, in the >> OpenCog HK team, is here: >> >> http://wiki.opencog.org/w/Link2Atom > > Thanks. I was not aware of this. However, it would be nice if the > rules for mapping link parses to atom sets didn't have to learned from > a manually created set of pairs. If you have to create this data, > you'll probably end up coding the rules directly because it's faster. > > But there really needs to be an algorithm for learning language just > from lots of raw text. I know it's possible because we all do it. > >>> There are several people working on development, but like any large >>> software project, a lot of the work is bogged down on fixing bugs, >>> porting issues, and updating the documentation. >> >> That's not really true at all, I'm sorry you have that false >> impression ;p .... OpenCog work is difficult and can be slow, but a >> small minority of the developers' time is spent on the things you >> mention. I would prefer if you would stop making statements like >> that; you're not part of the OpenCog development team and you really >> don't know what's going on in that context !! > > I guess my impression was biased by the number of emails along the > lines of "Help! I tried to build OpenCog and got all these errors...". > I guess when things go right, they don't say anything. > >>>There has been some discussion of making a distributed >>> version of AtomSpace but IMHO there are going to be severe performance >>> problems that make scaling to large numbers of processors impractical. >> >> Can you provide detailed technical reasons for this opinion, based on a >> specific >> critique of the proposed design for a distributed Atomspace, which is >> described >> in the PDF attached to the following wiki page? : >> >> http://wiki.opencog.org/w/DistributedAtomspace >> >> Concrete criticisms on your part might help us improve the design. >> >> General criticisms as you've made, are not very useful. > > Again, my impression was from discussion of performance issues on the > OpenCog list. Can you really tolerate 1/2 second delays or even 1 > microsecond delays for what would just be a memory-read on a single > processor? Also, how would you measure performance? What is your test > application? > > As you know, I would divide up the work differently. I have a > different view of AGI. It is not single human level intelligence that > you have to compete with, but large organizations of people. I would > divide the work by giving each processor a highly specialized task and > having them communicate over the internet by routing messages in > natural language text. Each peer would have a small vocabulary and > only understand messages that were relevant to it. It is not just the > processing that is distributed, but also the software development, > administration, policy, and meta data or indexing (X knows that Y > knows about Z). Because the task is huge, you need to bring in lots of > people and give them an economic incentive to join the project, so > that you mutually benefit from their work. Because you may not trust > everyone on the internet, you need a protocol with cryptographic key > exchange and signing so that intruders can't forge messages from > trusted peers. (I am sure you saw this before: > http://mattmahoney.net/agi2.html ). > > So I would say with OpenCog, keep it on a single processor and divide > the work at a high level. Depending on the task, AtomSpace might not > be the most efficient implementation. I realize that AtomSpace is > designed to be very general form of knowledge representation, and that > producing lots of specialized algorithms for specialized tasks is far > more complex. Yes it is. Also, I realize it is more fun to work on AGI > as a whole than to be part of a large, loosely coupled, organization > that is building AGI while you work on some tiny narrow-AI part of it. > Yes, that's how it is to work for a big company too. And it would be > nice to be CEO of this company, but you can't because this > organization has nobody in charge. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
