Ben, Oops, I have made my usual mistake of presuming what is "obvious" to me. OK, to correct my error...
I appears "obvious" to me that the first person who proposes the following things together as a workable standard, will "own" the future 'web. This because the world will enter the metadata faster than anyone is going to build a "semantic web" or anything like it without these items. In short, this is a sort of calculated retrograde step to get the goodies NOW and not sometime in the future. 1. Simple HTML meta commands to enter ontological meta information, so that information appearing on the web page can be properly "filed" without AI analysis of content. This completely avoids all of the usual disambiguation and "machine understanding" errors, so that ~99% accuracy should be achievable, ESPECIALLY when the agent that processes them is able to communicate any difficulties for humans to correct, and 2. #1 that works beyond searching and question-answering to function here and now to solve at least some interesting problems. Perhaps in years to come, people can omit some/all of this metadata and future AI interfaces to the web will still work, bit I simply see no reason to wait until then to "smarten the 'web". Once the metadata is in place, any bright programmer can implement the"Internet Singularity" by simply populating his tables based on the metadata. I'll certify right up front that my proposed standard probably has its share of holes, and specifically, that it is completely oriented to problem solving and NOT to question answering, which Dr. Eliza presently doesn't even attempt. However, once stated (as I did on the hyperlinked site in my previous posting), the challenge is "on the table" for others to either do better, or to sit back and eat (or have shoved down their throats) a defacto standard that may not be at all to their liking. Stephen had already alluded to the probable intractability of Cyc, which you have certainly reinforced. THAT is why I sought to put them on notice to "speak now, or forever hold your peace". Perhaps I should "serve notice", complete with a certified mail requiring an official signature, that a standards effort is in process that they can either supplement, challenge, or ignore at their peril. Continuing with your comments... On 12/3/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 Yea, most people can't even talk realistically about chronic illnesses, so whatever its real-world value, it makes a really crappy demo. Consequently, I have added a new section about bad teeth. There, you can describe a problem that your dentist says is bad enough to have a tooth extracted, and Dr. Eliza will discuss your tooth, often finding some unorthodox way of saving it. Plans are to have this up and running on http://www.DrEliza.com by next Monday. 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. The key to my approach is that they needn't change at all to bend my proposed standard. Of course, without considerable change, they'll remain stuck in question answering. No matter what happens, I win... 1. If they ignore me, I can simply point out that they chose not to participate in a standards effort. Even if Dr. Eliza fails in the market, the standard could still perpetuate. This would leave their ontological construction high and dry forever. 2. If they participate, then the standard would be stronger for everyone. 3. They might challenge with a standard of their own. If this fails to support problem solving, then they have limited both their standard and their product, and I would simply ignore them as would everyone else due to the limitations. If they incorporate problem solving, then they would have to expand their product and KB accordingly, which would be a BIG effort considering the size of their KB, and the fact that *experienced* domain experts are needed to code this stuff. Either way, this leave them out on a limb. 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... I have no reason to suspect that it doesn't. 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 ;-) Once we have kicked my thoughts around here and I run in whatever direction looks best, then I suspect that the issue of persistence vs. foolishness will be plainly resolved for all to see. Thanks very much for your independent view of this. Any more thoughts? Steve Richfield =============== > > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
