hi linus, finally getting back to this knowledge representation discussion.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:25:07 AM UTC+8, linas wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Michael Duncan <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> thanks for the feedback, linus! i copied the form using DefineLink and >> AndLink from the wiki >> > > Do you know where in the wiki it says this? > > >> because it was the closest example i could find to what i was trying to >> do. i'm happy to implement pathways using your formalism. >> > this was my starting point (from http://wiki.opencog.org/w/DefineLink): ... Examples DefinedPredicateNode The following uses DefineLink to define a DefinedPredicateNode <http://wiki.opencog.org/w/DefinedPredicateNode> DefineLink DefinedPredicateNode <http://wiki.opencog.org/w/DefinedPredicateNode> "MyPredicate" AndLink <http://wiki.opencog.org/w/AndLink> ... i wanted a predicate defined over an arbitrarily long list of links between proteinNodes to represent a pathway that is probabilistically true based the truth value of the links "anded" together. For plain-old knowledge representation, you probably should be using > EquivalenceLink, instead of DefineLink. DfineLink is imperative, while > EquivalenceLink is declarative. > > So, for example: when you say "A is the same as B" that is a declaration > that A is equivalent to B. This is an EquivalenceLink. > > When you say "A is the name of B", and then later say "do something with > A" that is an imperative command to actually do something with B. That is, > replace A by B immediately, and do something with B. This an imperative > command, This is the DefineLink. its a definition, kind-of-like in a > dictionary. > > Thus, both DefineLink and EquivalenceLink are a certain kind of equality; > but DefineLink is was invented to make it easier for humans to write code > in atomese, while EquivalenceLink was designed to be used by PLN and other > reasoning subsystems. EquivelanceLink declares knowledge. Since you are > not hand-crafting code in atomese, there is really no valid reason for you > to use DefineLink. > > > >> one thing i don't understand from your explanation is that you first say >> the PredicateNode can be used instead of DefinedPredicateNode but then use >> both in your proposed implementation. can you elaborate further on why >> your proposal is optimal? >> > > DefinedPredicateNode is simply a hack to make it easier for the pattern > matcher to look up the definition. Since you are not writing > pattern-matcher rules, there's no reason for you to use it. > well i'm using scheme code to construct an atomese representation that i want to use as a knowledge base for PLN queries. in it's current toy state the only real function the DefinedPredicateNode is serving is a flag to pick out pathways since those are the only DPNs in the atomspace so i am using it as a hack! > > also, what are the options for scheme functions to invoke all the members >> of one of the resulting DefinedPredicateNodes? >> > > I don't understand the question. First, one cannot "invoke" an atom. > Second, neither PredicateNodes nor DefinedPredicateNodes have "members". > Finally, you should try to avoid or minimize the writing or creation of > "scheme functions"; you should design your data so that either PLN, or the > pattern matcher, or the pattern miner, or the rule engine can work with it > directly. Writing new code by hand, whether in C++, scheme or python, is > best done to create generic data processing subsystems, instead of > hand-tailloring something for your particular dataset. There are > exceptions to this rule, but these should be avoided. > so if i use your pathway contruction: MemberLink DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" Predicate "protein relationship 1" > ProteinNode "x" > ProteinNode "y" > MemberLink DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" > Predicate "protein relationship 2" > ProteinNode "y" > ProteinNode "z" > .... > what i mean by "invoke" is just how do i access the members of the pathway DPN to apply them to ProteinNodes and their interaction predicates in a particular context? >> mike >> >> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-7, linas wrote: >>> >>> Quick comment, I did not review the Doc. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Michael Duncan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> the pathway links are predicates defined here >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_AiCCRuWKI92JUCYXJRnKeYw-MiwKLR3kr9fJyYZfs/edit>. >>>> >>>> the pathways are >>>> >>>> DefineLink >>>> >>> >>> I strongly urge that EquivalenceLink be used here, and not DefineLink. >>> DefineLink is meant for something else. >>> >>> >>>> DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" >>>> >>> Isn't an ordinary Predicatenode enough?? >>> >>> >>>> AndLink >>>> >>> >>> Again: the anlink is completely unordered, so in this case, would be >>> exactly the same thing as a SetLink: its just a collection of "stuff" (a >>> collection of protein relationships, it seems) Because its not ordered, >>> its not a "path" per se, its just a set. >>> >>> You keep saying that you use AndLink because its "true" when everything >>> is in it, but that is also the case for SetLink. When I say "x and y are >>> in set A", that always true that x is in A and Y is in A, and you don't >>> need an AndLink to say this. The SetLink is enough. The SetLink is >>> effectively an AndLink, from the truthiness of it. >>> >>> >>>> Predicate "protein relationship 1" >>>> ProteinNode "x" >>>> ProteinNode "y" >>>> Predicate "protein relationship 2" >>>> ProteinNode "y" >>>> ProteinNode "z" >>>> .... >>>> >>> >>> >>> I'm proposing this: >>> >>> MemberLink >>> DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" >>> Predicate "protein relationship 1" >>> >>>> ProteinNode "x" >>>> ProteinNode "y" >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> MemberLink >>> DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" >>> >>>> Predicate "protein relationship 2" >>>> ProteinNode "y" >>>> ProteinNode "z" >>>> .... >>>> >>> >>> >>> --linas >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:00:54 AM UTC-7, Michael Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> the AndLink semantics are for the simplified pathway representation >>>>> for the current demo/toy bio-atomspace which only has binary links >>>>> between >>>>> proteins and abstracts out small molecules. so the pathway for the krebs >>>>> cycle for instance is just directed links between the enzymes: ... -> >>>>> isocitrate >>>>> dehydrogenase -> alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase -> Succinyl-CoA >>>>> synthetase -> ... >>>>> >>>>> linus semantics look good for when the complete biopax pathway >>>>> representation is translated into atomese. >>>>> >>>>> even then my intuition is that the AndLink semantics should be useful >>>>> in pln inference about say the likelihood of a pathway being involved in >>>>> distinguishing a case-control phenotype based on moses models of relative >>>>> gene expression levels. >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:31:59 AM UTC-7, Ben Goertzel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> a pathway in biology is actually a network with directed arrows and >>>>>> generally lots of loops.... there are even some hyperlinks e.g. for >>>>>> catalysis... a pathway is a subhypergraph... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 7, 2017 11:25, "Linas Vepstas" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> no clue why its appropriate for biological pathways. Mike is >>>>>>> designing that, not me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, a "pathway" is an ordered sequence where the ordering >>>>>>> matters. Neither SetLink, nor AndLink are ordered. So if you actually >>>>>>> want >>>>>>> to have a path, i.e. a sequence of directed arrows, well .. you need >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> find a representation of biological pathways as directed arrows. But >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> is familiar ground, for opencog... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --linas >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK I get that... but I don't see why it is appropriate for >>>>>>>> biological >>>>>>>> pathways... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > First, lets review SetLink: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > SetLink >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "x" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "y" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "z" >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > EquivalenceLink >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>> > SetLink >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "x" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "y" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "z" >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > MemberLink >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "x" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>> > MemberLink >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "y" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>> > MemberLink >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "z" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Again, with TV's: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > MemberLink <1.0> >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "z" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>> > MemberLink <0.9> >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "w" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>> > MemberLink <0.8> >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "s" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>> > MemberLink <0.2> >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "m" >>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Sooo .. AndMemberLink would be just like the above, except that >>>>>>>> whereever >>>>>>>> > you see SetLink above, you would have AndLink, and wherever you >>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>> > MmeberLink above, you would have AndMemeberLink. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > --linas >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> I don't understand the proposed semantics of AndMemberLink, >>>>>>>> could you >>>>>>>> >> explain? >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Michael Duncan < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> > i actually think an AndLink-like semantics better fits >>>>>>>> biochemical >>>>>>>> >> > pathways >>>>>>>> >> > at a computationally tractable level than partitions in that >>>>>>>> below the >>>>>>>> >> > level >>>>>>>> >> > of a whole organism, where one pathway ends and another begins >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> >> > largely >>>>>>>> >> > arbitrary. also, if one link is missing then the whole thing >>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> >> > work >>>>>>>> >> > but the last bit of a dead end might be the start of another >>>>>>>> path that >>>>>>>> >> > goes >>>>>>>> >> > to the same place, more like words and phrases that can be >>>>>>>> rearranged >>>>>>>> >> > and >>>>>>>> >> > swapped in different ways to say the same thing. linus idea of >>>>>>>> >> > AndMemberLinks and OrMemeberLinks would get around the size >>>>>>>> limitation >>>>>>>> >> > and >>>>>>>> >> > also seem like they would be useful for reasoning on moses >>>>>>>> models. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:55:16 PM UTC-4, linas wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> Hi Ben, Mike, >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Ben Goertzel < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> >> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> Some interesting representational issues have come up in the >>>>>>>> context >>>>>>>> >> >>> of Atomspace representation of pathways, which appear to >>>>>>>> have more >>>>>>>> >> >>> general implications… >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> It seems the semantics we want for a biological pathway is >>>>>>>> sort of >>>>>>>> >> >>> like “the pathway P is a set of relationships R1, R2, …, >>>>>>>> R20” in kinda >>>>>>>> >> >>> the same sense that “the human body is a set of organs: >>>>>>>> brain, heart, >>>>>>>> >> >>> lungs, legs, etc.” >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> First of all it seems what we have here is a part of >>>>>>>> relationship… >>>>>>>> >> >>> maybe >>>>>>>> >> >>> we want >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “heart” >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “human-body” >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> and >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship< >>>>>>>> >> >>> >pathway< >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartLink and PartOfLink have come and gone in >>>>>>>> >> >>> OpenCog/Novamente/Webmind history... >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> An argument that PartLink should have fundamental status and >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> >> >>> well-defined fuzzy truth value is given in this paper: >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> https://www.academia.edu/1016959/Fuzzy_mereology >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> However what we need for biological pathways and human >>>>>>>> bodies seems >>>>>>>> >> >>> like a bit more. We want to say that a human body consists >>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>> >> >>> certain set of parts... not just that each of them is a >>>>>>>> part... We're >>>>>>>> >> >>> doing a decomposition. >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> One way to do this would be >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “human-body” >>>>>>>> >> >>> ListLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “legs” >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “arms” >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “brain” >>>>>>>> >> >>> etc. >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> Relatedly, we could also have >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> As mentioned earlier, there are several problems with this >>>>>>>> format. One >>>>>>>> >> >> is >>>>>>>> >> >> the "oops I forgot to mention xyz in the list" or "gosh I >>>>>>>> should have >>>>>>>> >> >> left >>>>>>>> >> >> out pqr" and this becomes a big problem: you have to delete >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >> >> PartitionLink, delete the ListLink, create a new list and >>>>>>>> partition. >>>>>>>> >> >> In the >>>>>>>> >> >> meanwhile, some other subsystem might be holding a handle to >>>>>>>> the old, >>>>>>>> >> >> now-wrong PartitionLink, and there is no effective way of >>>>>>>> announcing >>>>>>>> >> >> "hey >>>>>>>> >> >> stop using that old thing, get my new thing now". >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> A second problem is that the above doesn't have anywhere to >>>>>>>> hang >>>>>>>> >> >> addtional >>>>>>>> >> >> data: e.g. "legs are a big part of the human body, having a >>>>>>>> mas of >>>>>>>> >> >> nearly >>>>>>>> >> >> half of the body." You can't just slap that on as a >>>>>>>> (truth)value, cause >>>>>>>> >> >> there's no where to put that value. >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> Third problem is that large list-links are hard to handle in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >> >> pattern >>>>>>>> >> >> matcher. Its much much harder to write a query of the form >>>>>>>> "find me >>>>>>>> >> >> all >>>>>>>> >> >> values of $X where >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> PartitionLink >>>>>>>> >> >> ConceptNode “human-body” >>>>>>>> >> >> ListLink >>>>>>>> >> >> ConceptNode “legs” >>>>>>>> >> >> VariableNode “$X” >>>>>>>> >> >> ConceptNode “brain” >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> because, ... well the ListLink is an ordrerd link, not an >>>>>>>> unordered >>>>>>>> >> >> link. >>>>>>>> >> >> If you forget to include the pqr (added above) then the >>>>>>>> search will >>>>>>>> >> >> fail. >>>>>>>> >> >> You could try to use unordered links and globnodes, but these >>>>>>>> lead to >>>>>>>> >> >> other >>>>>>>> >> >> difficulties, including the n! possible permutations of an >>>>>>>> unordered >>>>>>>> >> >> link >>>>>>>> >> >> become large n-factorial large when the unordered link has n >>>>>>>> items in >>>>>>>> >> >> it. >>>>>>>> >> >> Recall that old factorial-70 trick used to make calculators >>>>>>>> overflow. >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> In general, any link with more than 3 or 4 or 5 items in it >>>>>>>> is bad >>>>>>>> >> >> news. >>>>>>>> >> >> This is a generic statement about knowledge representation in >>>>>>>> opencog. >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> OverlappingPartitionLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> C >>>>>>>> >> >>> L >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> if we want to encompass cases where the partition elements >>>>>>>> in L can >>>>>>>> >> >>> overlap; or >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> CoveringLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> C >>>>>>>> >> >>> L >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> if we want to encompass cases where the partition elements >>>>>>>> in L can >>>>>>>> >> >>> overlap, AND the elements in L may encompass some stuff >>>>>>>> that’s not in >>>>>>>> >> >>> C >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> For the pathway case, we could then say >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “Krebs cycle” >>>>>>>> >> >>> ListLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship 1< >>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship 2< >>>>>>>> >> >>> etc. >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> Now this solves the semantics problem but doesn’t solve the >>>>>>>> problem of >>>>>>>> >> >>> having a long ListLink…. A biological pathway might have >>>>>>>> 100s or >>>>>>>> >> >>> 1000s of relationships in it, and we don't usually want to >>>>>>>> make lists >>>>>>>> >> >>> that big in the Atomspace... >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> To solve this we could do something like (for the human body >>>>>>>> case) >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “human-body” >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “body-partition-1” >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “body-partition-1" >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “legs” >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “body-partition-1" >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “arms” >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> etc. >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> and similarly (for the biological pathway case) >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “Krebs cycle” >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1” >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1" >>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship 1< >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink >>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1” >>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship 2< >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> Yeah, sure. Not sure why the existing MemberLink is not >>>>>>>> sufficient for >>>>>>>> >> >> your purposes. The MemberLink has reasonably-well-defined >>>>>>>> semantics, >>>>>>>> >> >> there >>>>>>>> >> >> are already rules for handling it in PLN (or there will be >>>>>>>> rules -- I >>>>>>>> >> >> think >>>>>>>> >> >> its something Nil has thought about) I'm not clear on why >>>>>>>> you'd want >>>>>>>> >> >> to >>>>>>>> >> >> invent something that is just like MemberLink but is >>>>>>>> different. >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> ... >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> There could be some nice truth value math regarding these, >>>>>>>> e.g. we >>>>>>>> >> >>> could introduce Ellerman's "logical entropy" which is really >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> >> >>> partition entropy. There are also connections with some >>>>>>>> recent >>>>>>>> >> >>> theoretical work I've been doing on "graphtropy" (using >>>>>>>> "distinction >>>>>>>> >> >>> graphs" that generalize partitions), which I'll post a paper >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> >> >>> sometime in the next week or two.... But that will be >>>>>>>> another email >>>>>>>> >> >>> for another day... >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> Yeah graphical-entropy is something that I keep trying to >>>>>>>> work on, >>>>>>>> >> >> except >>>>>>>> >> >> that every new urgent disaster of the day distracts me from >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> --linas >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>> -- Ben >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >> > -- >>>>>>>> >> > 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/e1df7273-da14-45f5-8d0d-5ebad0d31217%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>>> >> 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 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> > > > -- > *"The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and > take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the > problem is that it's too stupid and already has." * > -- 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/b413685a-5d9a-45f4-879f-5647e67d3f5e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
