In the para-natural formal language I've developed, called Jinnteera, "I saw
the man with the telescope." would be expressed for each meaning in a
declarative phrase as:
1. "I did see with a telescope the_man"
2. "I did see the man which did have a telescope"
3. "I saw with a telescope the_man" or "I use a telescope for action (saw
the_man) (where "saw" has the meaning of "saw a 2x4", never "see", which
always takes the same form and means "to view")
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Esterbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Natural versus formal AI interface languages
On 10/31/06, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess the AI problem is solved, then. I can already communicate with
my
computer using formal, unambiguous languages. It already does a lot of
things better than most humans, like arithmetic, chess, memorizing long
lists and recalling them perfectly...
Ben G. brought up an excellent example of language ambiguity at a
recent workshop:
"I saw the man with the telescope."
Does that mean:
(1) I saw the man and I used a telescope to do it.
(2) I saw the man, he had a telescope.
(3) I performed the action "to saw" using a telescope instead of using
a saw (presumably because I'm a dummy).
All three or completely different and also completely valid (unless
you throw in life experience which knocks out 3). Just reforming the
sentence in a more data-structure-like fashion helps immensely. Just
making something up here:
(1) I.saw(direct_object=man, using=telescope)
(2) I.saw(direct_object=(man, with=telescope))
(3) I.saw_cut(direct_object=man, using=telescope)
Getting more formal substantially lowers the work needed to obtain
correct meaning.
I imagine that's what lojban and its variants are intended to
accomplish although I haven't had time to check them out. I also
imagine they have a better approach to my off-the-cuff design.
If a machine can't pass the Turing test, then what is your definition of
intelligence?
The ability to learn in a variety of situations without having to be
re-engineered in each situation. Also, off-the-cuff, but I feel it's a
good start. For example, if we had software that could learn:
* List sorting
* Go
* Pong
* Basic Algebra
* etc.
*without* being hard coded for them or being reprogrammed for anything
other that access to input, that would feel pretty darn general to me.
But without natural language, it would not be human level.
I think "human level intelligence" is a bigger, harder goal than
"general intelligence" and that the latter will come first. And I
would be damned impressed if someone had an AGI capable of all the
above even if I had to communicate in lojban to teach it new tricks.
-Chuck
-----
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]
