On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Andrew G. Babian <[email protected]>wrote:
> ... it's very clear to me that language cannot be the bottom or basis of > representation. A language system has to be a piece on top of the basic > system. It may be the most important piece to us, because for interaction > with us, and ability to use our body of written knowledge and contribute to > it, a system will need to use language. But, that need in no way implies > that you could ever get any intelligent behavior if you just start at the > level of language. There are plenty of reasons to think otherwise. > Our computers presently use symbolic language to do all sorts of intelligent things and as time passes they can do more and more. Are you saying that language cannot be the basis of representation for AGI? What evidence is there of that. The only evidence of that is that we do not see true AGI developing around us but I believe that is just a matter of not seeing that progress in AI represents a real expansion into greater generality. Jim Bromer On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Andrew G. Babian <[email protected]>wrote: > I would go with Todor on this one. More specifically, it's very clear to > me that language cannot be the bottom or basis of representation. A > language system has to be a piece on top of the basic system. It may be > the most important piece to us, because for interaction with us, and > ability to use our body of written knowledge and contribute to it, a system > will need to use language. But, that need in no way implies that you could > ever get any intelligent behavior if you just start at the level of > language. There are plenty of reasons to think otherwise. > > And I think it has been very misleading that because of the importance of > language, systems that use text as just meaningly data have been somewhat > useful, much more so than other approach. I'm talking about statistical > NLP. That word-bag stuff and Google's big corpus stuff. It managed to be > something we could do without too much work, and crowds out real progress. > It uses an oversimplified model of knowledge as exact recording. Meanings > just are not recordings. > Andi > > > > On Apr 3, 2013, at 3:12 AM, Todor Arnaudov <[email protected]> wrote: > > One thought from me: throw away NL for representations in an intelligent > system, unless there's a mind that does understand it completely - e.g. one > that can unroll and map any ambiguous vague NL item (as long as it falls in > its cognitive reach) down to sensory data specifics or/and > theory/implementation details; and back. > > > >Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:07:18 -0700 > > Subject: [agi] What is "understanding"? > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > Aaron, et al, > > > Recent discussions regarding representation brings up an even more > fundamental question - what is "understanding". > >(...) > > >I am NOT looking for vague wishy-washy words. I am looking for a solid > definition that defines the outer boundary of > >"understanding", > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-470149cf> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
