Ben, > My perspective on grounding is partially summarized here > www.goertzel.org/papers/PostEmbodiedAI_June7.htm >"Clearly, embodiment makes the task of teaching a proto-AGI system a heck of a >lot easier – to such a great extent that trying to create a totally unembodied >AGI would be a foolish thing."
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Your embodiment approach might be better for dealing with the implicit knowledge problem than trying to specify every single fact using the predicate logic or by a conversation-based teaching. But there is another way, and that's teaching through submitted stories [initially written in a formal language] = a solution I'm trying to implement when I (once a while) get to my AGI development. Stories (and the formal language) provide important contextual data and collections of those stories can supply a decent amount of semantic knowledge useful for generating (& clarifying) the implicit knowledge / grounding particular concepts. Writing stories is [I guess] generally easier than setting up scenarios-to-learn-from in simulated 3D world. And all the data processing and attention allocation etc you need in order to handle the 3D world is IMO an unnecessary overkill. But, I have to admit, my AGI is not well functional yet (+ I definitely have AGI stuff to learn), so - just sharing my current opinion. ;-) Regards, Jiri Jelinek ------------------------------------------- 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
