On 1/27/07, Philip Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Totally disagree! I actually examined a few cases of *real-life*
commonsense inference steps,
>and I found that they are based on a *small* number of tiny rules of
thought. I don't know why
>you think "massive" knowledge items are needed for commonsense
reasoning -- if you closely
>examine some of your own thoughts you'd see.
On 1/19/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Sorry about the confusion =) What I meant is that the AGI's knowledgebase
needs to store a massive number of facts/rules, but a *single* commonsense
inference case (eg the examples from my introspection) usually involves only
a few deductive steps in logic (assuming the required rules are there).
I guess Ben's objection is based on the first point, but the project is
still feasible if it is powered by an online community, IMO.
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
