I have been an admirer of your robotic works for many years but I just couldn't help ask you a question.
I have created a few robots using sonar and other sensors and I totally agree that the real world is very messy. However, most of my thinking is at a much higher level than what my senses provide. The messy world is turned into my symbolic world through a complex maze of systems but in the end, at least my conscious brain, uses the symbols created, not messy reality. The idea that the whole AGI puzzle can be solved by exclusively using predicate logic, I agree doesn't fit with what we both know about sensor data in the real world. On the other hand, I don't see why a huge chunk (and I would argue the more difficult part) of the "intelligence part" of an AGI can't be done using words, numbers and pictures (idealized pictures I believe are more valuable than real ones) in a vast series of models. I can't see why AGI researchers would have to take an either/or approach to constructing their AGI when dealing with the real world AND intelligently correlating the symbols created. Having both seems like an obviously better approach. Neither approach by itself seems even remotely plausible to me. If both areas can't be had in a single researcher or group then I see no reason why each group can't do what they do best and then develop an interface so that the final AGI has the benefit of both. I am not proposing that all AGI designs are equal or useful and I am not proposing an AGI should be created using an amalgamation of all types of AGI. I am specifically referring to only symbolic intelligence (in some form) and the systems that would turn messy real world data into symbols that could be used by the symbolic system. I have great respect for people that are working on turning pictures and vision into useful symbolic objects. I believe this and speech recognition etc are greatly needed and would be very helpful to an AGI but I don't believe these problems need to be solved as a first step to AGI or that they are entirely necessary to at least get close to human level intelligence. Is a blind man who is also a paraplegic necessarily considered less intelligent than an able bodied person? David Clark From: Bob Mottram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March-04-08 8:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB? On 04/03/2008, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. This is fine provided that the AGI lives inside a chess-like ambiguity free world, which could be a simulation or maybe some abstract data mining environment. _____ agi | <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | <http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- 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
