On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The problem is to gradually improve overall causal model of >> environment (and its application for control), including language and >> dynamics of the world. Better model allows more detailed experience, >> and so through having a better inbuilt model of an aspect of >> environment, such as language, it's possible to communicate richer >> description of other aspects of environment. But it's not obvious that >> bandwidth of experience is the bottleneck here. > > No, but nor is it obvious that this *isn't* one of the major bottlenecks... >
My intuition is that it's very easy to steadily increase bandwidth of experience, the more you know the more you understand. If you start from simple sensors/actuators (or even chess or Go), progress is gradual and open-ended. >> >> It's probably just >> limitations of the cognitive algorithm that simply can't efficiently >> improve its model, and so feeding it more experience through tricks >> like this is like trying to get a hundredfold speedup in the >> O(log(log(n))) algorithm by feeding it more hardware. > > Hard to say... > > Remember, we humans have a load of evolved inductive bias for > understanding human language ... AGI's don't ... so using Lojban > to talk to an AGI could be a way to partly make up for this deficit in > inductive bias... > Any language at all is a way of increasing experiential bandwidth about environment. If bandwidth isn't essential, bootstrapping this process through a language is equally irrelevant. At some point, however inefficiently, language can be learned if system allows open-ended learning. This is a question of not doing premature optimization of a program that is not even designed yet, not talking about being implemented and profiled. >> It should be >> possible to get a proof-of-concept level results about efficiency >> without resorting to Cycs and Lojbans, and after that they'll turn out >> to be irrelevant. > > Cyc and Lojban are not comparable, one is a knowledge-base, the other > is a language > > Cyc-L and Lojban are more closely comparable, though still very different > because Lojban allows for more ambiguity (as well as Cyc-L level precision, > depending on speaker's choice) ... and of course Lojban is intended for > interactive conversation rather than knowledge entry > (as tools towards improving bandwidth of experience, they do the same thing) -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
