On 1/19/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well YKY, I don't feel like rehashing these ancient arguments on this
list!!
Others are welcome to do so, if they wish... ;-) You are welcome to repeat the mistakes of the past if you like, but I frankly consider it a waste of effort. What you have not explained is how what you are doing is fundamentally different from what has been tried N times in the past -- by larger, better-funded teams with more expertise in mathematical logic...
Well I think people gave up on logic-based AI (GOFAI if you will) in the 80s because of newer techniques such as neural networks and statistical learning methods. They were not necessarily aware of what exactly was the cause of failure. If they did, they would have tackled it. For the type of common sense reasoner I described, we need a *massive* number of rules. You can either acquire these rule via machine learning or direct encoding. Machine learning of such rules is possible, but the area of research is kind of immature. OTOH there has not been a massive project to collect such rules by hand. So that explains why my type of system has not been tried before. My system is conceptually very close to Cyc, but the difference is that Cyc only contains ground facts and rely on special predicates (eg $isa, $genl) to do the reasoning. My project may be the first to openly collect facts as well as rules. I guess Novamente or NARS can benefit by importing these rules, if the format is right? YKY ----- 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/?list_id=303
