Hi Linas, don't worry, no rush! Il giorno venerdì 2 aprile 2021 alle 20:05:23 UTC+2 linas ha scritto:
> But then, without a "true-AGI" learning, I'll never have a "true-AGI" >> knowledge base and without that I'll not be able to continue, right? >> > > I don't understand the question. > > Why work for point 1 if point 2 is a prerequisite? >> > > It's not a pre-requisite! > > It seems like a no-win situation. Maybe I'm just a pessimist! >> > > I don't understand. > > There will be another way... In the end, our knowledge base was also >> helped by our parents in some way. >> > > ? I don't understand what our parents have to do with this... > > It was just a personal reflection. I mean that I cannot get a project to AGI without a learning algorithm (because the knowledge base would then surely be hand-crafted). Regarding the parents, I didn't know how to explain. My idea is that maybe I wouldn't rule out supervised learning. Because human learning is sometimes guided by a teacher, who gives you the image of a horse and also tells you that it is a horse. > The primary benefit of scheme is that it is functional programming, and > learning how to code in a functional programming language completely > changes your world-view of what a program is, and what software is. If you > only know C/C++/java/python, then you have a very narrow, very restricted > view of the world. You're missing a large variety of important concepts in > software. Yes, learning functional programming is "good for you". > I took a course on the semantics and type system of a functional mini-language. Now I'm learning the practical code! Can I ask you to say something about tree of decisions in Eva? Was it a >> separate scheme/python module that analyzed SequentialAnd? >> > > No, it was just plain Atomese. > > Many Atoms have an execute method (actuall, all Atoms have an execute > method, but it is non-trivial on only some of them.) > > The execute method on SequentialAnd simply steps through each Atom in it's > outgoing set, and asks "are you true?" -- by calling execute, and seeing if > it returns "true". If some atom in the outgoing list returns "false", then > SequentialAnd stops and returns false. Otherwise, it continues till it > reaches the end of the list, and then returns true. > > There is no "external module" to perform this analysis. > > While i'm at it, I can't place some components in your architecture: >> I read Moshe Looks thesis on MOSES and what I found on OpenPsi. But in >> practice what were they used for? >> > > I used MOSES to analyze medical notes from a hospital (free-text doctor > and nurses notes) and predict patient outcomes. Some other people used > MOSES to try to predict the stock market. Ben/Nill used it to hunt down > genes that correlate with long life. > > OpenPsi was used as an inspiration for a kind-of combined > prioritization-plus-human-emotion-modelling system. It was, still is > problematic, for failing to separate these two ideas. There are many > practical problems in AtomSpace applications that lead to a combinatorial > explosion of possibilities, and one part of open-psi seems to be effective > in deciding which of these possibilities should be explored first. > Unfortunately, the design combined it with a really terrible model of human > psychology, and this lead to a mass of confusion that was never fully > resolved. it doesn't help that the creator of micro-psi came back and said > that open-psi has no resemblance to micro-psi whatsoever. There are some > good ideas in there, but the implementation remains problematic. > > >> Finally, in practice what does PLN do/have more than URE? >> > > I suppose Nil answered this already, but ... PLN defines a certain > specific set of truth-value formulas. URE doesn't care about truth value > formulas. > > URE can chain together rules, -- arbitrary collections of rules. PLN is a > specific collection of rules, and they are not only specific rules, but > they are coupled with specific formulas for determining the truth value. > > So, for example, consider chaining implications: If A implies B and B > implies C then A implies C. This is a "rule" that recognizes an input of > two pairs (A,B) and (B,C), and creates the pair (A,C) if the truth of A is > T. it marks the truth of C as being T. A variant of this is Bayesian > deduction, where the truth values are replaced by conditional probabilities. > > URE doesn't care what kind of rule it is, or what happens to the truth > values. The rules could be non-sense, and the formulas could be crazy, and > URE would still try to chain them. > > Thanks for these explanations, I'm continuing to expand my knowledge! If your machine is incapable of talking, it would be hard to argue that > it's smart. Now, dogs, cats, crows and octopi can't talk, and for > centuries, some people (many people) believed they weren't smart. Well, now > I think we all know better, but still, the best way to prove how smart or > stupid you are is to open your mouth. > > >> if i didn't want interactions with humans could i do it differently? >> > > Well, you could build a self-driving car. But I don't think Elon Musk is > claiming that FSD is AGI. > > A certain variation of the sensor values already represents "the forward >> movement", I do not need to associate a name with it if I don't speak, >> also for the Atom "bottle" I could use its ID instead. >> I don't understand why removing natural language implies having an >> inference devoid of "true understanding". >> > > You know the expression "writing about music is like dancing about > architecture"? Well, you could build a robot that dances, but you would > have a hard time convincing anyone that its smart, that it's anything other > than a clever puppet. > > >> >> Stupid example: If I speak Italian with a French, neither of us >> understands the other. But a bottle remains a bottle for both and if I give >> him my hand he will probably do it too ... or he will leave without saying >> goodbye. >> > > It's all very contextual. If you speak Italian, and you see a human, you > assume that what you see has all the other properties of being a human. If > you speak Italian, and you see a robot with a mechanical arm, you assume > that it has all the typical properites of a robot: stupid and lifeless, > just a machine. > > -- Linas > Ok so, in summary: either I make it talk or I have to invent another way to demonstrate his intelligence! I will have to think better about all this, elaborate the concepts that have been said. In the meantime, thanks for everything Linas. Michele -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/944c8705-dd55-4f5f-a8e0-7912d6ec3a37n%40googlegroups.com.
