Steve, Frankly, I find it rather unlikely that Cyc would consider it "obvious" that your project will "usurp their own efforts if they fail to participate."
Two points 1) it's not as though you have any really awesome demonstrated results with Dr. Eliza, that would compel them 2) even if you did, my impression as an outsider is that the Cyc crew is extremely fixated on their own approach and more resistant to change than most AI organizations. They *have* changed their approach in significant ways over time (e.g. introducing context, introducing uncertainty etc. into their representation) ... but, still, I think my point holds... Please note that the vast majority of the AI community thinks Cyc should change what they're doing in various significant ways, but they are staying true to their course, which is either noble persistence or foolish stubbornness depending on your perspective ;-) ben g On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve, > > Based on your attached response, How about this alternative approach: > > Send (one of) them an email pointing out > http://www.dreliza.com/standards.php which will obviously usurp their own > efforts if they fail to participate, and offer them an opportunity to > suggest amendments these standards to incorporate (some of) their own > capabilities. > > Seeing that Dr. Eliza's approach is quite different, they should then figure > out that their only choices are to join or die. I wonder how they would > respond? You know these guys. How would YOU play this hand? > > Any thoughts? > > Steve Richfield > ================ > On 12/2/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Steve Richfield said: >> >> If I understand you correctly, Cycorp's code should be public domain, and >> as such, I should be able to simply mine for the features that I am looking >> for. It sounds like Cycorp doesn't have a useful product (yet) whereas it >> looks like I do, so it is probably I who should be doing this, not Cycorp. >> >> >> Regretfully, the KRAKEN source code is not public domain, despite the fact >> that US tax dollars paid for it. >> >> >> While at Cycorp, John DeOliveira and I lobbied for an open-source version >> of Cyc, that one of us dubbed "OpenCyc". Doug Lenat saw the advantages of >> releasing a limited form of Cyc technology, especially to preclude some >> other possible ontology from becoming the de facto standard ontology, e.g. >> for the Semantic Web. However, Cycorp is bedeviled by its own traditional, >> proprietary nature and Lenat did not want to release the source code for the >> object store, lisp runtime, inference engine, applications and utilities. >> The first release of OpenCyc that I prepared contained many, but not all, of >> the full Cyc concept terms, and their defining assertions. No rules, nor >> numerous other commonsense assertions about these concepts were released. >> The provided OpenCyc runtime was binary only, without source code, and with >> its HTML browser as its sole released application. A Java API to Cyc, that >> I wrote, was also released with its source code under the Apache License. >> >> The KRAKEN application is not provided with OpenCyc, and it was growing >> stale from lack of maintenance when I was let go from the company in August >> 2006. >> >> -Steve >> >> Stephen L. Reed >> >> Artificial Intelligence Researcher >> http://texai.org/blog >> http://texai.org >> 3008 Oak Crest Ave. >> Austin, Texas, USA 78704 >> 512.791.7860 >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: agi@v2.listbox.com >> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 10:22:37 PM >> Subject: Re: [agi] Seeking CYC critiques >> >> Steve, >> >> If I understand you correctly, Cycorp's code should be public domain, and >> as such, I should be able to simply mine for the features that I am looking >> for. It sounds like Cycorp doesn't have a useful product (yet) whereas it >> looks like I do, so it is probably I who should be doing this, not Cycorp. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Who should I ask for code from? >> >> Steve Richfield >> ================== >> On 12/1/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Steve Richfield said: >>> KRAKEN contains lots of good ideas, several of which were already on my >>> wish list for Dr. Eliza sometime in the future. I suspect that a merger of >>> technologies might be a world-beater. >>> >>> I wonder if the folks at Cycorp would be interested in such an effort? >>> If you can find a sponsor for the effort and then solicit Cycorp to join >>> in collaboration, I believe that they would be interested. The Cycorp >>> business model as I knew it back in 2006, depended mostly upon government >>> research sponsorship to (1) accomplish the research that the sponsor wanted, >>> e.g. produce deliverables for the DARPA Rapid Knowledge Formation project, >>> and (2) incrementally add more facts and rules to the Cyc KB, write more >>> supporting code for Cyc. Cycorp, did not then, and likely even now does not >>> have internal funding for non-sponsored enhancements. >>> >>> -Steve >>> >>> >>> Stephen L. Reed >>> >>> Artificial Intelligence Researcher >>> http://texai.org/blog >>> http://texai.org >>> 3008 Oak Crest Ave. >>> Austin, Texas, USA 78704 >>> 512.791.7860 >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: agi@v2.listbox.com >>> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 3:19:37 PM >>> Subject: Re: [agi] Seeking CYC critiques >>> >>> Steve, >>> >>> The KRAKEN paper was quite interesting, and has a LOT in common with my >>> own Dr. Eliza. However, I saw no mention of Dr. Eliza's "secret sauce", that >>> boosts it from answering questions to solving problems given symptoms. The >>> secret sauce has two primary ingredients: >>> 1. The syntax of differential symptom statements - how people state a >>> symptom that separates it from similar symptoms of other conditions. >>> 2. Questions, the answers to which will probably carry #1 above >>> recognizable differential symptom statements. >>> Both of the above seem to require domain experienced people to code, as >>> book learning doesn't seem to convey what people typically say, or what you >>> have to say to them to get them to state their symptom in a differential >>> way. Also, I suspect that knowledge coded today wouldn't work well in 50 >>> years, when common speech has shifted. >>> >>> I finally gave up on having Dr. Eliza answer questions, because the >>> "round trip error rate" seemed to be inescapably high. This is the product >>> of: >>> >>> 1. The user's flaws in their world model. >>> 2. The user's flaws in formulating their question. >>> 3. The computer's errors in parsing the question. >>> 4. The computer's errors in formulating an answer. >>> 5. The user's errors in understanding the answer. >>> 6. The user's errors from filing the answer into a flawed world model. >>> >>> Between each of these is: >>> >>> x.5 English's shortcomings in providing a platform to accurately state >>> the knowledge, question, or answer. >>> >>> While each of these could be kept to <5%, it seemed completely hopeless >>> to reduce the overall error rate to low enough to actually make it good for >>> anything useful. Of course, everyone on this forum concentrates on #3 above, >>> when in the real world, this is often/usually swamped by the others. Hence, >>> I am VERY curious. Has KRAKEN found a worthwhile/paying niche in the world >>> with itsw question answering, where people actually use it to their benefit? >>> If so, then how did they deal with the round trip error rate? >>> >>> KRAKEN contains lots of good ideas, several of which were already on my >>> wish list for Dr. Eliza sometime in the future. I suspect that a merger of >>> technologies might be a world-beater. >>> >>> I wonder if the folks at Cycorp would be interested in such an effort? >>> >>> BTW, http://www.DrEliza.com is up and down these days, with plans for a >>> new and more reliable version to be installed next weekend. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> Steve Richfield >>> ================== >>> On 11/29/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Robin, >>>> There are no Cyc critiques that I know of in the last few years. I was >>>> employed seven years at Cycorp until August 2006 and my non-compete >>>> agreement expired a year later. >>>> >>>> An interesting competition was held by Project Halo in which Cycorp >>>> participated along with two other research groups to demonstrate >>>> human-level >>>> competency answering chemistry questions. Results are here. Although >>>> Cycorp performed principled deductive inference giving detailed >>>> justifications, it was judged to have performed inferior due to the >>>> complexity of its justifications and due to its long running times. The >>>> other competitors used special purpose problem solving modules whereas >>>> Cycorp used its general purpose inference engine, extended for chemistry >>>> equations as needed. >>>> >>>> My own interest is in natural language dialog systems for rapid >>>> knowledge formation. I was Cycorp's first project manager for its >>>> participation in the the DARPA Rapid Knowledge Formation project where it >>>> performed to DARPA's satisfaction, but subsequently its RKF tools never >>>> lived up to Cycorp's expectations that subject matter experts could rapidly >>>> extend the Cyc KB without Cycorp ontological engineers having to intervene. >>>> A Cycorp paper describing its KRAKEN system is here. >>>> >>>> I would be glad to answer questions about Cycorp and Cyc technology to >>>> the best of my knowledge, which is growing somewhat stale at this point. >>>> >>>> Cheers. >>>> -Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> Stephen L. Reed >>>> >>>> Artificial Intelligence Researcher >>>> http://texai.org/blog >>>> http://texai.org >>>> 3008 Oak Crest Ave. >>>> Austin, Texas, USA 78704 >>>> 512.791.7860 >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: agi@v2.listbox.com >>>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 9:46:09 PM >>>> Subject: [agi] Seeking CYC critiques >>>> >>>> What are the best available critiques of CYC as it exists now (vs. soon >>>> after project started)? >>>> >>>> Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu >>>> Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University >>>> Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University >>>> MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 >>>> 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >>>> ________________________________ >>>> agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >>> ________________________________ >>> agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >> >> ________________________________ >> agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >> ________________________________ >> agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I intend to live forever, or die trying." -- Groucho Marx ------------------------------------------- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
