YKY,
Frankly, I still see many conceptual confusions in your description.
Of course, some of them come from other people's mistake, but they
will hurt your work anyway.
For example, what you called "rule" in your postings have two
different meanings:
(1) A declarative implication statement, "X ==> Y";
(2) A procedure that produces conclusions from premises, "{X} |- Y".
These two are related, but not the same thing. Both can be learned,
but through very different paths. To confuse the two will cause a
mess.
The failure of GOFAI has reasons deeper than you suggested. Like Ben,
I think you will repeat the same mistake if you follow the current
plan. Just adding numbers to your rules won't solve all the problems.
"More knowledge, higher intelligence" is an intuitively attractive
slogan, but has many problems in it. For example, more knowledge will
easily lead to combinatorial explosion, and the reasoning system will
derive many "true" but useless conclusions. How do you deal with that?
I don't think it is a good idea to attract many volunteers to a
project unless the plan is mature enough so that people's time and
interest won't be wasted.
Sources of human knowledge will be needed by any AGI project, so
projects like CYC or MindPixel will be useful, though I'm afraid
neither is cost-effective enough to play a central role in satisfying
this need. Mining the Web may be more efficient, though it will surely
leave gaps in the knowledge base to be filled in by other methods,
such as personal experience, NLP, interactive tutoring, etc.
Sorry for the negative tone, but since you mentioned my work, I have
to clarify my position.
Pei
On 1/19/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
-----
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
