That is a somewhat arbitrary definition. Jim Bromer
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: > The Backstory: > > The reason for the analogy is that I was coding functions to transform a > search node during state space search. > An operator is *applicable *if the preconditions match a search node's > state. In which case we would *apply *the > operator to the state to get the next state. An operator is *relevant *to > a search node if the operator's effects > match the goals of the search node. Hence, depending upon whether we're > doing progressive (forward) or > regressive (backward) search, we'd either call *Node_apply* or > *Node_relate*. > > Flash forward to today: > > Posed the question on Quora, Facebook and here, since I wanted a quick > response. "Relate" won. > Sent a complaint to Wolfram Alpha since they didn't understand similies > and I thought they should. > Their staff replied that they're looking into it. > > That is all. > > ~PM > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:08:59 +0200 > Subject: Re: [agi] applicable : apply :: relevant : ? > To: [email protected] > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > > Wolfram Alpha > > > > I am missing the point here, of course it could be tackled the narrow AI > way, but we are looking for something different, right? Are you trying to > outsource your analogies? Sell an analogy API? I think "in principle" the > analogy works when we can reuse a script, for example "compressing data is > like drying food, with a bit of time and technique you can use the original > while saving space and weight during transport and storage", and it would > take a bit of general intelligence to show all the different ways in which > the analogy does not work, just like so many of the analogies that dominate > our political debates. > > As always, it would be easier to derive or solve analogies with some kind > of logical decomposition, it would be a pity to waste the toolkit of > "physical primitives" in TRIZ, or the tentative search for "irreducible > cognitive dimensions" at CYC or yours truly. Which is more or less the > "thought vectors" that recently appeared in some patents. I believe the > main difference between the search for primitives and the new vectors is > that the vectors are more ad hoc, there is neither the assumption nor the > intention to look for irreducible quantities, fundamental symmetries etc, > the ambition is simply to capture as many parameters of a situation or a > concept in a vector and then "reason" with familiar algebraic tools. > > The discovery and application of anything that would look like "cognitive > DNA" would be the holy grail of AGI. > > AT > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | > 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
