> True, but this is inherent with ALL less than perfectly understood systems > and is not in any way peculiar to Dr. Eliza. Extrapolations are inherently > hazardous, sometimes without reasonable limit.
Correct. Part of the point to AGI is to automatically create knowledge bases that are as complete as possible. Dr. Eliza seems to be a reasonable attempt to use a small amount of cherry-picked knowledge to solve a wide but not complete range of unsolved problems of a given type -- and has all of the standard inherent advantages and disadvantages of that approach. Wouldn't you agree? > There were a bunch of them and I don't claim to be a historian. As I > understood those methods they used two kinds of expertise - one of which was > similar to the symptoms and conditions that I use, and another that guided > the repair process. Dr. Eliza does without the guidance. This has the > advantage that it works with inept experts, and the disadvantage that it can > be less efficient than if it had good guidance. I had to find a grand > heuristic to replace expert-entered probabilities and the rest of that > guidance. After lots of experimenting, that grand heuristic turned out to be > incredibly simple, buried in the symptom weighting for various conditions, > being that you count the first potential symptom (or its verified absence) as > 80%, the next one as 80% * 20% = 16%, the third as 80% * 4% = 3%, etc. This > gives a lot of weighting to the leading symptoms, but nonetheless seemed to > work well. Wow! That's a *really* wicked tail-off. Seems really counter-intuitive. I'm not sure what you mean by "guided the repair process". ------------------------------------------- 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
