Hi Kevin,
I think you have posed an excellent question, "WHAT TO DO?" For some time,
I was thinking that the key would be developing a 'database' that modelled
the world like we do, so that we would have something to talk to. The
computer would be able to parse our language because it would have a
corresponding model of the world to parse it into...
While sleeping on the road (literally) somewhere in the Southwestern United
States on my way to seek AI in San Francisco, an epifany occured to me. The
database is important, certainly, but something else is even more important.
We need to focus more on the 'overhead' part of conversations, which is used
to establish and maintain context, and verify that accurate communication
has occured. This will help a lot in keeping the thread of a conversation
going. As to what to do? If we take the model of how a computer works, we
find that a computer, appearances aside, is doing something all the time.
There is always the idle loop, checking for other processes requesting time.
The idle loop in a conversation is that 'idle gossip' stage where identities
and context are established. More than this, though, 'idle' chit chat
allows the two communicating entities to hone and polish their models of the
world (or at least the way in which language is commonly mapped into it).
Various key sentences or questions can act as triggers to go off into other
loops which fulfil requests for information or to perform tasks, but once
these tasks are verified and fullfilled, then they fall back into the basic
idle loop. Determining the effective timing and language of this 'chit
chat' is an area where psychologists, philosphers and flim flam men may
well come in handy... (Maybe even former German teachers...)
As I work up a fuller and more formal write up on this, I will post it on a
common web-site and announce the location to everyone.
Regards :) Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:38 PM
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.
>
> Ciao,
> Kevin
> --------------
> Kevin Watt, AllPoetry.com Community manager: Poets Unite!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://allPoetry.com>
> "Here, write it, or it will be erased by the wind." - Isabel Allende
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Steve Vertigan
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Project Earth
>
>
> Lee Goddard wrote:
> >
> > >The objective of Project Earth is to build a database of factual
> information
> > >relevant to any aspect of life by collating voluntary contributions
made
> by
> > >project participants.
> >
> > Does anyone remember the name of the project that tried to
> > program a database with the equivelant knowledge of a three
> > year-old child? It's still running, after I think 30 years.
>
> Did that project utilise a world-wide network of contributors like this
> one aims to do or did it involve a limited team? Of course then you
> have the problem of people entering junk data in the database. I
> suppose one solution would be to have a review system like the PGP web
> of trust where a given fact could be trusted in accordance with how many
> people have confirmed it and how trusted a given person is considered to
> be (probably has a neat parallel with how humans choose to believe
> something).
>
> But the main problem with this approach in general IMHO is surely the
> best you can hope for is a sophisticated database searching program that
> can tell you $string is/= $otherstring. By itself it wouldn't even have
> much hope of passing the turing test let alone be arguably
> 'intelligent'. Or am I missing something?
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> --
> OpenBSD maelstrom.dyn.dhs.org GENERIC#399 i386
> 12:50AM up 1 day, 16:44, 1 user, load averages: 0.61, 0.64, 0.64
> God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean.
> -- Albert Einstein
>
