On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> Watson is able to understand complex sentences and reason without any >> embodiment. To compensate, it includes code to reason about space and >> time. For example, if it knows that X is north of Y and Y is north of >> Z then it can reason that X is north of Z. >> > > Yes. That kind of reasoning is quite simple and many other systems > can do that too. However, Watson has a large and carefully curated > knowledge base. > > My intuition is that approaches similar to Watson are not going to > succeed at general-purpose language understanding... > > It may be that IBM will succeed at general-purpose language > understanding. But if so, I predict it will be via taking an > architecture vaguely like Watson, and inserting into it a component > more like OpenCog, that does much deeper and broader forms of > generalization than anything in Watson... > > -- Ben G
Watson's knowledge base is 4 TB of text. That is 4000 times larger than an average person would hear and read in a lifetime. That, and a fast reaction time on the buzzer, compensates for it other weaknesses such as lack of vision and embodiment. Reasoning about space and time are fairly simple, but these are only 2 of over 100 modules, each of which can answer only a few percent of the questions. The intelligence comes from putting all of these together. What kind of test would be appropriate for comparing Watson with OpenCog? -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
