Be Like Nike... ~PM > Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:02:35 -0500 > Subject: [agi] Re: ...Therefore it is feasible to teach the AI program Type 0 > Grammars > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > I recently advanced the idea that more complicated grammars could be > taught to a program that learned incrementally, (through trial and > error), by first teaching it simpler grammars. How might this work? > This instruction would be associated with particular statements, so > the grammars would be acquired as it learned about specific 'objects' > of reference. But, a particular statement might refer to objects of > generalization as well as specific objects. For example, 'my car' > refers to a specific car, 'the car' can refer to some specific car > which is not fully specified (by the phrase), so it is a little like a > variable that refers to 'some car', and the term 'a car' usually > refers to a car which is not going to be fully specified. These > simple syntactic distinctions are not consistently upheld in natural > language and that is part of the problem, but I am just using them as > examples. Further examples of syntactic markers can be found in early > AI. The phrase, 'is a' can often refer to a higher level of > generalization which might be used as a category. 'A cat is an > animal' is an example. The term, 'has a', also used in early AI, is > often a way of denoting that some object of reference has some > characteristic or property. There were many problems with the > overly-simplistic use of syntactic markers. One is that they are not > used consistently and the second is that the statements in which they > appear are not usually universally true (which makes logical deduction > problematic). 'A leopard has spots' can be true, but I have a > specific memory of a black leopard that I saw (because it made me > think of a much larger version of a black Burmese house cat that we > had) that did not have spots. Since my AI / AGI program would be > designed to look for common words that can be found within different > kinds of sentences (and text) it will be able to detect potential > candidates that might be used as generalizations in more complicated > sentences. > > It is my feeling that by using previously acquired simple grammatical > forms I should be able to direct my program to be able to effectively > use the relative generalization level of the sentences that I would > use with it. And since I am designing the program to look for reason > based reasoning, I will also be able to use simpler grammatical forms > to emphasize relations that can be tied together by true reasoning. > And I will also be able to use simpler grammatical forms to direct its > attention to the connections of anaphoric-like relations in the text. > > I realize that I haven't convinced many of the people who will read > this, but that is not my interest. I am trying to give the few people > who might actually be interested some insight into what I am working > on. I should have some more substantial examples, whether they work > or not, sometime next year. > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
