On Feb 17, 2008 4:54 PM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In that sense, is a Wikipedia article "grounded", if it doesn't > contain a photo?
No. > Can it be useful for us? For us yes, for an AI program no. > I mean, "symbol grounding" is indeed an important issue, but it > doesn't show up everywhere. Not everywhere, no; only everywhere you're trying to write AI software :) > A Cyc-like KB can be useful, if it use a > proper formal language Cyc does that. > which allows its concepts to be related to > each other, as well as to other items outside the KB, such as > sensorimotor mechanism. And what I'm saying is that last bit is the hard part, the big problem that needs to be cracked before this stuff can start delivering useful results; therefore it needs to be placed first rather than last. > It would be nice to have a public KB in which the concepts are already > linked to images and operations, but since sensorimotor tends to be > highly system-dependent, I cannot expect that in the near future. That (the "highly system-dependent" part) is one of the big problems that needs to be solved, yes. And I don't expect it in the near future either, but I don't think it's flatly impossible to make substantial progress on it in the near future (only hard enough that it probably won't happen). > What is in your mind as a "grounded KB"? Well, there aren't any AGI examples at the moment of course, which is the problem. But narrow-AI examples can be found in the field of computer Go, where successful programs tend to be integrated with knowledge bases of actual board patterns in various contexts. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
