On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> wrote: > Anyway, there is a way of avoiding guile entirely: perform all of the > parsing in the same address space as the atomspace; that way, guile never > gets involved.
Yes, that is what I have suggested to Curtis and Rui Ting... > Done right, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but the way Ben > talks about it, it makes me nervous that it will be a horrid hack job that > I'll get to fix, instead of doing something fun. I get tired of taking out > other people's garbage, and I'm just very nervous that we'll generate a lot > of garbage here. Well, apart from code-quality issues, the semi-substantive issue is whether -- for the zero stage -- to use random link parses or just build AnyLinks between words that are reasonably nearby each other in the input sentence.... You prefer the "random link parse" approach, Ruiting and I prefer the "words that are reasonably nearby in the sentence" approach... but I guess we both agree this is a small matter in the context of the overall language learning pipeline... ... These weird Guile bugs may well have implications for other use-cases besides this language learning pipeline though, that's another issue... ben -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am the boundary, I am the peak." -- Alexander Scriabin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CACYTDBe90sO%2BcxjB4z8p_wigOE2oZm4dWvbGo42y8ikhW85UhQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
