> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Watt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 August 2001 21:39
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: facts & RE: Project Earth
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> >From what I've seen, our unstepped stone in AI isn't formulating a
> believable network of facts - such systems as wordnet and framenet work as
> great categorical placement of words + their meanings, and there are many
> great semantic parsers out there (Automatic Labeling of Semantic Roles,
> Gildea / Jurafsky), but the hardest part is deciding WHAT TO DO - imposing
> some will upon a system, past even just a list of projects. To have IT
> start a conversation, and lead it, rather than just reacting as so many
> chatterbots can do / fake intelligence with today.
I think you are greatly overestimating what public/commercial AI is capable
of atm, but I sympathise with your sentiment: I left AI for that reason,
and that the military route was the only way to go to get stuff done.
However, imo, the problem is not getting IT to lead; rather the reverse.
IT is like riding a bike: great skill, where do you go? As AI research
is the US at least is traditionally led by MIT, and traditionally
sponsored by the US Navy, the direction has been limited. You can bet
there are a number of projects going on which you'd love to hear about,
but won't do for many years because various non-disclosure agreements.
Perhaps psychologists and philosophers should take the lead, and tell
the technicians what to do?
lee
