>> But the question is whether the internal knowledge representation of the AGI 
>> needs to allow ambiguities, or should we use an ambiguity-free 
>> representation.  It seems that the latter choice is better. 

An excellent point.  But what if the representation is natural language with 
pointers to the specific intended meaning of any words that are possibly 
ambiguous?  That would seem to be the best of both worlds.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: YKY (Yan King Yin) 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?


  On 3/4/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
  >  
  > Good example, but how about: language is open-ended, period and capable of 
"infinite" rather than myriad interpretations - and that open-endedness is the 
whole point of it?.
  >  
  > Simple example much like yours : "handle". You can attach words for objects 
ad infinitum to form different sentences  - 
  >  
  > "handle an egg/ spear/ pen/ snake, stream of water etc."  -  
  >  
  > the hand shape referred to will keep changing - basically because your hand 
is capable of an infinity of shapes and ways of handling an infinity of 
different objects. . 
  >  
  > And the next sentence after that first one, may require that the reader 
know exactly which shape the hand took.
  >  
  > But if you avoid natural language, and its open-endedness then you are 
surely avoiding AGI.  It's that capacity for open-ended concepts that is 
central to a true AGI (like a human or animal). It enables us to keep coming up 
with new ways to deal with new kinds of problems and situations   - new ways to 
"handle" any problem. (And it also enables us to keep recognizing new kinds of 
objects that might classify as a "knife" - as well as new ways of handling them 
- which could be useful, for example, when in danger).


  Sure, AGI needs to handle NL in an open-ended way.  But the question is 
whether the internal knowledge representation of the AGI needs to allow 
ambiguities, or should we use an ambiguity-free representation.  It seems that 
the latter choice is better.  Otherwise, the knowledge stored in episodic 
memory would be open to interpretations and may need to errors in recall, and 
similar problems.

  YKY

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  

-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to