:-) I don't think I've ever known you to spout intentionally BS . . . .
A well-architected statistical-NLP-based information-retrieval system would
require an identification (probably an exemplar) of the cluster(s) that matched
each of the portfolios and would return a mixed conglomerate of data rather
than any sort of coherent explanation (other than the explanations present in
the data cluster). The WASNLPBIRS certainly wouldn't be able to condense the
data to a nicely readable format or perform any other real operations on the
information.
What I meant by *really* sophisticated should have been indicated by the
difficult end of my six point list -- which is fundamentally equivalent (in my
opinion) to a full-up AGI since it basically requires full understanding of
English and a WASNLPBIRS feeding it.
The problem with the WASNLPBIRS and what Linas suggested is that they look
*really* cool at first -- and then you realize how little they actually do.
The real problem with your claim of "if a user asked "I'm a small farmer in
New Zealand. Tell me about horses" then the system would be able to disburse
its relevant knowledge about horses, filtering out the irrelevant stuff" is the
last five words. How do you intend to do *that*. (And notice that what I
kicked Linas for was precisely his "It will happily include "irrelevant" facts".
I've had to deal with users who have bought large, expensive "conceptual
clustering" systems who were *VERY* unhappy once they realized what they had
actually purchased. I would be *real* careful if I were you about what you're
promising because there are already a good number of companies that, a decade
ago, had already perfected the best that that approach could offer -- and then
died on the rope of user dissatisfaction.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] What best evidence for fast AI?
On Nov 12, 2007 6:56 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It will happily include "irrelevant" facts
Which immediately makes it *not* relevant to my point.
Please read my e-mails more carefully before you hop on with ignorant
flames. The latter part of your e-mail clearly makes my point -- anyone
claiming to be able to do a sophisticated version of this in the next year
is spouting plain, unadulterated BS.
Mark, I really wasn't spouting BS. I imagine what you are conceiving
when you use the label of "sophisticated" is more sophisticated than what
I am hoping to launch within the next year.
Being "sophisticated" is not a precise criterion.
Your example of giving information about horses in a contextual way
**
How do you know what is irrelevant? How much do your answers differ between
a small farmer in New Zealand, a rodeo rider in the West, a veterinarian is
Pennsylvania, a child in Washington, a bio-mechanician studying gait?
**
is in my judgment not beyond what a well-architected statistical-NLP-based
information-retrieval system could deliver. I don't think you even need a
Novamente system to do this. So is this all you mean by "sophisticated"? I
don't really understand what you intend... seriously...
-- Ben
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/?&;
-----
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=64413835-ad7189
