On 2/19/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why would this approach succeed where Cyc failed? Cyc paid people to build > the knowledge base. Then when they couldn't sell it, the tried giving it > away. Still, nobody used it. > > For an AGI to be useful, people have to be able to communicate with it in > natural language. It is easy to manipulate formulas like "if P then Q". It > is much harder to explain how this knowledge is represented and learned in a > language model. Cyc did not solve this problem, and we see the result.
I think Cyc failed mainly because their KB is not large enough to make useful inferences. We need a huge KB indeed. Automatic rule generalization can make the KB smaller. Translating NL into the KB form is one way to collect facts/rules easier. But I still think the knowledge representation should be logic, instead of natural language. YKY ------------------------------------------- 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
