> > (1): The other caveat is that any system/representation merge that isn't > > exhaustive (i.e. summing to systems together in totality) will > > necessarily lose a lot of pattern context that is probably relevant. On > > the upside, a fully merged system generally uses fewer resources than > > the sum of the two independent systems that went into the merged system. > > Size has its advantages. > > If you're talking about knowledge exchange for complete systems, I > agree that is nearly impossible. Knowledge can only be exchanged > within instances of the same system. I'm only proposing KX for > the sensory frontend. It looks like there's going to be a battle of > "KX standards" among various AGIs... all the more reasons to think > about this problem sooner.
Two issues 1) I don't think object recognition goes in the sensory front-end ... it's at least partially cognitive 2) even among sensory-processing front ends, I don't think there can be the kind of standardization you want. For instance, Novamente will use a probabilistic-combinatory-term-logic based representation for perceptual patterns, whereas I also know how to build systems that use wavelet expansion based representations for perceptual patterns. Translating wavelets into Novamente's repr. is awkward; doing the reverse is close to impossible... -- Ben G ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
