Hi Ivan, Let me top-post answers to your questions. First, one needs to clarify: "what is a knowledgebase?" There are multiple components that can be called "a knowledgebase", and they are all quite very different.
Lets start with the Hanson Robotic Sophia Personality. This is not one knowledgebase, but several: A) A collection of (partly-hand-authored) face and arm animations. Not terribly useful, if you don't have the physical robot. (and there are many robots, with slightly different motors and mechanical details) You CAN also use these on the blender model, without the physical robot. The older animations were open-source, not sure if the current ones are. Based on interactions on the mailing list, exactly ZERO people (outside the HR circle) downloaded and used these. I used to wish that this could become a viable open-source project on its own, with active developers and hobbyists using it. No such luck. Basically, animators don't create animations as open-source projects. Hollywood has instilled a highly proprietary, closed-source, intellectual-property anti-piracy mindset in this class of people. What might it take to change this? HR did hire a professional animation company, and paid oodles of money, to expand the animation set. I don't know if these are public or private. Doesn't much matter, if no one cares. B) A collection of (hand-authored) monologues tailored for various public appearances. Stuff like "Be sure to visit booth B42, where Gadget Corp is displaying their latest gizmo." These are proprietary, but you wouldn't want these anyway. C) general personality. This is scattered across multiple databases. One of them is https://github.com/opencog/loving-ai which is public. Other bits are private. Its her personality, how she reacts to things, the words that fall out of her mouth. D) Knowledge about English and Russian grammar. This is in link-grammar, its public. The robots more or less do not use this subsystem, expect in a few half-baked, half-operational demos that have been given over the years. The demos can and will be improved, but its slow going. E) knowledge about the world. There is no such database at this time. The robot is as dumb as a rock. Its not a whole lot more than a glorified chatbot, at this time. (I actually counted -- the robot has somewhere between 5 and 8 bits of knowledge about the external world. That's "bits", not bytes.) The goal is, of course, to have the robots observe, read, learn. We are taking baby-steps in these directions. However, from practical experience, whenever I actually publish an actual dataset of knowledge, no one EVER downloads it. I can't even get my collaborators to download it -- I have to nag them, repeatedly. The interest in, the thirst for "knowledgebases" is very nearly zero. No one cares. Anyway, even if people were asking for knowledgebases, we have almost zero tools for creating and curating them. I create them by hand and manage them by hand with a motley collection of scripts, all in public github repos. You can help by improving these scripts. --linas On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ivan Bludov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > Can you please clarify for me one ethical points behind OpenCog? > I have heard from the last RISE conference that Hanson's robots are > connected to the cloud, which stores the knowledge gained by the robots and > share this knowledge among them. > > My straight question: is this knowledge base planned to be open or close? > Or to be intellectual property of Hanson robotics? > I mean, you are talking about the openness and open architecture, what is > nice. But what about knowledge base? Who owns that? > Would Hanson robotics be another kind of Google in this case? When every > data, that you uploaded, belongs to Google. > > I understand that this is the way how the companies usually protect their > business from the competitors. And you have done a lot of work to teach > your robots. But for me this would not be a beautiful future, when all > gained knowledge would belong to one company. > > Can you please comment your visions about this? > > Thanks, > Ivan Bludov > > -- > 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/bcdbc967-76f9-4dc4-9cd7-0d63e02a3d72%40googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- *"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/CAHrUA34wUyddcbGFtd5K1%3D_jzNQ%3D%2BsM%3DLuv4gbseoD%2BCmkWV%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
