On 11/2/07, Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:01:42AM -0700, Charles D Hixson wrote: > > To me this point seems only partially valid. 1M hand coded rules seems > > excessive, but there should be some number (100? 1000?) of hand-coded > > rules (not unchangeable!) that it can start from. An absolute minimum > > would seem to be "everything in 'Fun with Dick and Jane' through 'My > > Little White House'". That's probably not sufficient, but you need to > > at least cover those patterns. Most (though not all) of the later > > patterns are, or can be, built out of the earlier ones via miscellaneous > > forms of composition and elision. This gives context within which other > > patterns can be learned. > > > > Note that this is extremely much simpler that starting your learning > > from a clean slate. > > Yes, exactly. A clean slate is a very hard place to start. And so, > yes, this is my current philosophy: build enough scaffolding to be > able to pump some yet-to-be-determined more general mechanism.
How is this scaffolding going to help? You can regard learning subsystem as 'blank slate by definition', so that without scaffolding it'll directly interact with environment, and with scaffolding in place it will interact with whatever scaffolding supplies it with. So, hard-coded part can be regarded as kind of modality, like vision, that performs some preliminary analysis, changes representation and so on. But learning problem isn't changed by it. And if you solve the learning problem, you don't need any scaffolding. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=60517720-7bf48f
