On 4/19/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't claim that the Novamente/OpenCog design is the **only** way ... but I > do > note that the different parts are carefully designed to interoperate together > in subtle ways, so replacing any one component w/ some standard system > won't work.
This problem may be common to all AGI designs -- no one seems to be able to build AGI out of standard components. But I would strive towards that ideal as close as possible. > For instance, replacing PLN with some more popular but more limited > probabilistic > logic framework, would break a lot of other stuff... PLN is not based on predicate logic but on term logic, right? That may be a source of problem. > I would bet that with appropriate incentives all of the above > researchers could be persuaded to collaborate on a common AI project > -- without it degenerating into some kind of useless > committee-think... THAT would be highly desirable, but are we ready yet to reconcile our differences? I guess we can start from gradually re-using standard components in a bottom-up manner. Also, establishing a knowledge interchange format. > Let's call these approaches LIVE, for short -- Logic-incorporating, > Integrative, Virtually Embodied LIVE is good =) > -- Pei Wang's approach, which is interesting but is fundamentally > committed to a particular form of uncertain logic that no other AGI > approach accepts I think Pei Wang makes his own versions of abduction and induction that, from the classical logic perspective, are unsound. Otherwise his approach is also LIVE. > -- Selmer Bringsjord's approach, which is founded on the notion that > standard predicate logic alone is The Answer Agreed. Binary logic can go a long way, but ultimately is insufficient for AGI. That said, I'm currently designing learning algorithms using binary logic only, and plan to add fuzzy and probability later. > OpenCog is general enough to support any approach falling within the > LIVE category, and a number of other sorts of approaches as well > (e.g. a variety of neural net based architectures). But it is not > **completely** general and doesn't aim to me ... IMO, a completely > general AGI development > framework is just basically, say, "C++ and Linux" ;-) Yes, OpenCog is definitely a good move. I hope you will allow it more free so it can bring about more fundamental changes, to the point that different AGI projects can interoperate. =) 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
