I believe that many of the earlier AI methods will, once they are energized by the polynomial solution to SAT, be shown to be powerful enough to go beyond narrow AI as long as they are not bound completely by the traditional models of their application. So application and relevancy both seem like they are pretty fundamental terms both for computer programming in general and AI in particular. The question is then whether they can be formally defined relative to each other as AGI operators without eventually bogging the system down in someway. If an 'operator' is applicable then it must be relevant as far as the applicableness goes, and if an 'operator' is relevant then it can be applied in someway. So it seems like they are good terms for some basic underlying operational principles.
Jim Bromer On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <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> > <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
