The development of real AI is a progressive evolutionary process. The ability to use natural languages, with even a minimum of fluency, is simply beyond the capacity of any AI technology that exists today. A para-natural language can communicate all the essential meanings of a natural language without the intractable messiness, and can be parsed easily like any other computer language. It's the best choice for the current primitive state of AI technology. The development of human-level natural-language abilities will take as much time as the development of human-level intelligence, and this will not happen right away. Dumb, to less dumb, to somewhat smart, to smart is a necessary progression.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Natural versus formal AI interface languages


John Scanlon wrote:
One of the major obstacles to real AI is the belief that knowledge of a natural language is necessary for intelligence. A human-level intelligent system should be expected to have the ability to learn a natural language, but it is not necessary. It is better to start with a formal language, with unambiguous formal syntax, as the primary interface between human beings and AI systems. This type of language could be called a "para-natural formal language." It eliminates all of the syntactical ambiguity that makes competent use of a natural language so difficult to implement in an AI system. Such a language would also be a member of the class "fifth generation computer language."

Not true. If it is too dumb to acquire a natural language then it is too dumb, period.

Richard Loosemore.



-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to