Applicable & Relevant. Those are the appropriate terms in A.I. Planning. ~PM
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:29:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [agi] applicable : apply :: relevant : ? From: [email protected] To: [email protected] 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 | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
