As I've come out of the closet over the list tone issues, I guess I
should post something AI-related as well -- at least that will make me
net neutral between relevant and irrelevant postings. :-)
One of the classic current AI issues is grounding, the argument being
that a dictionary cannot be complete because it is only
self-referential, and *has* to be grounded at some point to be truly
meaningful. This argument is used to claim that abstract AI can never
succeed, and that there must be a physical component of the AI that
connects it to reality.
I have never bought this line of reasoning. It seems to me that meaning
is a layered thing, and that you can do perfectly good reasoning at one
(or two or three) levels in the layering, without having to go "all the
way down." And if that layering turns out to be circular (as it is in a
dictionary in the pure sense), that in no way invalidates the reasoning
done.
My own AI work makes no attempt at grounding, so I'm really hoping I'm
right here.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
