Mike Tintner wrote:
MW/MT: Correct me, but I haven't seen any awareness in AI of the huge
difficulties that result from the problem of : how do you test acquired
knowledge?
MW:You're missing seeing it. It's generally phrased as "converting data
to knowledge" or "concept formulation" and it's currently generally
envisioned more as a problem of how do you do it (acquire knowledge and
store it) than how do you test that you've been successful at it (since
it's tough to test something that you don't even know how to do yet).
The AI field is very aware of this problem but it's almost a cart before
the horse problem. Once we know how to acquire and store knowledge,
then we can develop metrics for testing it -- but, for now, it's too
early to go after the problem.
This is interesting. I strongly suspect AI has it very wrong. We're
recognising that perception is not as was once thought fairly passive
reception of impressions, later checked and corrected by the rational
brain, but active exploration and intelligent from the v. beginning.
> [snip]
Mike,
As with many of your other observations, this one could really benefit
from the background knowledge you would get from some reading: the idea
that "perception is [the] fairly passive reception of impressions..." is
so old and out of date that if you pick up a textbook on cognitive
psychology printed 30 years ago you will find it dismissed as wrong.
This is the issue of top-down vs bottom-up processing. Everyone knows
that perception is the result of a combination of pickup (bottom-up
processing) and expectation (top-down processing). There are many, many
ways to implement this idea.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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=98558129-0bdb63
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
