Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Which exact aspect are you relying on and how are you implementing it? The main thin is the restriction on domain, all of his scripts were very limiting, IE if you used a restaurant script and anything out of the ordinary happened, it would break. It was very fragile in this fashion, and such, most all scripts were hand-created and of limited use outside the test cases. One way I looked at fixing those deficiencies is having many similar scripts allowed, and allowing an easy way for an english user to create a basic script. James Ratcliff Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :-)A lot of the reason why I was asking is because I'm effectively somewhat (how's that for a pair of conditionals? :-) relying on Schank's approach not having any showstoppers that I'm not aware of -- so if anyone else is aware of any surprise show-stopper's in his work, I'd love to have some pointers. Thanks. - Original Message - From: Jean-Paul Van Belle To: Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think he got much closer than most of the GOFAIers i.e. he's one of my old school AI heroes :) I thought for a long time his approach was one of the quickest ways to AGI and I still think anyone studying AGI should definitely study his approach closely. In the end any would-be AGIst (?:) will have to decide whether she adopts conceptual primitives or not - probably, apart from ideological arguments, mainly on the basis of how she decides to (have her AGI) ground its/his/her concepts (or not, as the case may be). Personally I'd say that a lot of mental acts do not reduce to his primitives easily (without losing a lot in the translation, to paraphrase a good movie:) and mental acts are quite important in my AGI architecture. Just personal opinion of course. =Jean-Paul - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Wednesday, June 6, 2007, James Ratcliff wrote: JR Which exact aspect are you relying on and how are you implementing it? JR The main thin is the restriction on domain, all of his scripts were very limiting, IE if you used a restaurant script and anything out of the ordinary happened, it would break. It was very JR fragile in this fashion, and such, most all scripts were hand-created and of limited use outside the test cases. JR One way I looked at fixing those deficiencies is having many similar scripts allowed, and allowing an easy way for an english user to create a basic script. Which leaves from original approach about only fill-the-gaps cycle, which is general enough to have no show-stoppers or immediate practical value :) Though I believe in fill-the-gaps direction, with much more flexible scheme application and learning techniques. -- Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Which exact aspect are you relying on and how are you implementing it? Wow. That would take a long time to explain . . . . soon (I hope) The main thin is the restriction on domain, all of his scripts were very limiting, IE if you used a restaurant script and anything out of the ordinary happened, it would break. It was very fragile in this fashion, and such, most all scripts were hand-created and of limited use outside the test cases. Yes, I agree entirely. His individual scripts are very much like narrow AI applications. One way I looked at fixing those deficiencies is having many similar scripts allowed, and allowing an easy way for an english user to create a basic script. Or maybe another way is to find many potential scripts on a really big resource . . . . :-) with the downside of then having to evaluate them, etc., etc. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 11:11:53 am James Ratcliff wrote: The main thin is the restriction on domain, all of [Schank's] scripts were very limiting, IE if you used a restaurant script and anything out of the ordinary happened, it would break. It was very fragile in this fashion, and such, most all scripts were hand-created and of limited use outside the test cases. One way I looked at fixing those deficiencies is having many similar scripts allowed, and allowing an easy way for an english user to create a basic script. In real life, with real people, of course, this is one of the most basic capabilities (on both ends) -- it's called telling a story. Real intelligence generates a stock of scripts from experience, both firsthand and secondhand. The key is to be able to parse your experience as a script in such a way you can use it later. And that gets us back to representation and concept formation: unsolved as yet (and that's why I said that the original work had a gap separating it from the implementable). But in its own terms, at its ontological level, I think it was generally on track. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
On 6/5/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very little about sign language, but it seems possible that the constraints applied by the relatively long time periods needed to produce gestures with arms/hands compared to the time required to produce vocalizations may mean that sign language communication is more compact and maybe less ambiguous. Also, comparing the way that the same concepts are represented using spoken and sign language might reveal something about how we normally parse sentences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English Ogden's rules of grammar for Basic English allows people to use the 850 words to talk about things and events in the normal English way. Ogden did not put any words into Basic English that could be paraphrased with other words, and he strove to make the words work for speakers of any other language. He put his set of words through a large number of tests and adjustments. He also simplified the grammar but tried to keep it normal for English users. More recently, it has influenced the creation of Simplified English, a standardized version of English intended for the writing of technical manuals. BillK - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , causeand because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 11:18:49 On 6/5/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very little about sign language, but it seems possible that the constraints applied by the relatively long time periods needed to produce gestures with arms/hands compared to the time required to produce vocalizations may mean that sign language communication is more compact and maybe less ambiguous. Also, comparing the way that the same concepts are represented using spoken and sign language might reveal something about how we normally parse sentences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English Ogden's rules of grammar for Basic English allows people to use the 850 words to talk about things and events in the normal English way. Ogden did not put any words into Basic English that could be paraphrased with other words, and he strove to make the words work for speakers of any other language. He put his set of words through a large number of tests and adjustments. He also simplified the grammar but tried to keep it normal for English users. More recently, it has influenced the creation of Simplified English, a standardized version of English intended for the writing of technical manuals. BillK - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Actually, information theory would argue that if the more compactness was driven by having less information due to a low transmission speed/bandwidth, then you would likely have more ambiguity (i.e. less information on the receiving side) not less. Also, there have been numerous studies comparing spoken and sign languages in terms of sentence structure. The most interesting ones (for both spoken and sign) are the ones dealing with languages that are invented by small groups who haven't been previously exposed to other languages. Unfortunately, I don't have access to specific references currently. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
As I understand it, true sign language (e.g. ASL) has its own syntax and to some extent tis own vocabulary. The slowness sign language is almost entirely in those artificial variants where there has been an attempt to transliterate the spoken language into a set of gestures. Natively signed language is at least as fast and expressive as spoken, possibly more so. I'm fairly sure the bottleneck in both cases is the mental production of the string of symbols, not their physical enactment. My operating theory, not original, is that language arose from the ability to watch another's hands and understand what they were doing. (The fact that signed language operates at native as opposed to emulated speed and breadth tends to support this.) This is the angle I'm attacking language from in Tommy -- have him interpret sequences of actions, and see what kind of mechanism that forces me to build. Josh On Tuesday 05 June 2007 05:00:49 am Bob Mottram wrote: I remember last year there was some talk about possibly using Lojban as a possible language use to teach an AGI in a minimally ambiguous way. Does anyone know if the same level of ambiguity found in ordinary English language also applies to sign language? I know very little about sign language, but it seems possible that the constraints applied by the relatively long time periods needed to produce gestures with arms/hands compared to the time required to produce vocalizations may mean that sign language communication is more compact and maybe less ambiguous. Also, comparing the way that the same concepts are represented using spoken and sign language might reveal something about how we normally parse sentences. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 11:49:11 am Mark Waser wrote: Also, there have been numerous studies comparing spoken and sign languages in terms of sentence structure. The most interesting ones (for both spoken and sign) are the ones dealing with languages that are invented by small groups who haven't been previously exposed to other languages. The technical term for such a language is a creole. Interestingly, people do the same thing with moral ontologies and rules. There's quite a strong parallel between certain linguistic and ethical phenomena. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition. [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 16:48:32 Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , causeand because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
And the Simple / Basic english provides for breaking up of many complex compound sentences, for shorter structures, that even without the vocabulary reduction increases the ability to parse sentences greatly. There is even a Simple English wikipedia, though it seems to lack many articles and information. James Ratcliff Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition. [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 16:48:32 Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Thanks. But Schank has fallen into disuse, no? The ideas re script algorithms just don't work, do they? And what I was highlighting was one possible reason - those primitives are infinitely open-ended and can be, and are, repeatedly being used in new ways. That supposedly minimally ambiguous language looks, ironically, like it's maximally ambiguous. I agree that the primitives you list are extremely important - arguably central - in the development of human language. But to my mind, and I'll have to argue this at length, and elsewhere, they show something that you might not like - the impossibility of programming (in any conventional sense) a mind to handle them. - Original Message - From: Jean-Paul Van Belle To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition. [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 16:48:32 Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 04/06/2007 18:43 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
I think you are mis-interpreting me. I do *not* subscribe to the semantic primitives (I probably didn't put it clearly though). Just trying to answer your question re the sufficiency of 10 or so verbs. However, if you are considering any reduced vocabulary then you should be familiar with the literature/theories and *also* know why it failed. I think other people also mentioned that list readers should check old discredited approaches first and then see how your current approach is different/better. Jean-Paul Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/07 7:14 PM Thanks. But Schank has fallen into disuse, no? The ideas re script algorithms just don't work, do they? And what I was highlighting was one possible reason - those primitives are infinitely open-ended and can be, and are, repeatedly being used in new ways. That supposedly minimally ambiguous language looks, ironically, like it's maximally ambiguous. I agree that the primitives you list are extremely important - arguably central - in the development of human language. But to my mind, and I'll have to argue this at length, and elsewhere, they show something that you might not like - the impossibility of programming (in any conventional sense) a mind to handle them. - Original Message - From: Jean-Paul Van Belle To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition. [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/06/05 16:48:32 Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to come or go to a place. -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 04/06/2007 18:43 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
list readers should check old discredited approaches first Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of research petered out? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
I wouldnt say discredited, though he has went off to study education more instead of AI now. Good article on Conceptual Reasoning http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/concept.shtml His SAM project was very interesting with Scripts back in '75, but for a very limited domain. My project has the ability for a KR to contain multiple scripts describing a similar event to allow reasoning and generalization of simple tasks. James Ratcliff Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: list readers should check old discredited approaches first Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of research petered out? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 02:47:27 pm Mark Waser wrote: list readers should check old discredited approaches first Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of research petered out? I think Schank's stuff was quite sound at its level but was abstract enough (at the level that it was right) to have a gap between it and the ability of the GOFAI infrastructure to implement. Note that this is a generally valid concern with quite a few of the things we need at the higher levels of organization of an AGI. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think he got much closer than most of the GOFAIers i.e. he's one of my old school AI heroes :) I thought for a long time his approach was one of the quickest ways to AGI and I still think anyone studying AGI should definitely study his approach closely. In the end any would-be AGIst (?:) will have to decide whether she adopts conceptual primitives or not - probably, apart from ideological arguments, mainly on the basis of how she decides to (have her AGI) ground its/his/her concepts (or not, as the case may be). Personally I'd say that a lot of mental acts do not reduce to his primitives easily (without losing a lot in the translation, to paraphrase a good movie:) and mental acts are quite important in my AGI architecture. Just personal opinion of course. =Jean-Paul James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/07 9:19 PM I wouldnt say discredited, though he has went off to study education more instead of AI now. Good article on Conceptual Reasoning http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/concept.shtml His SAM project was very interesting with Scripts back in '75, but for a very limited domain. My project has the ability for a KR to contain multiple scripts describing a similar event to allow reasoning and generalization of simple tasks. James Ratcliff Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: list readers should check old discredited approaches first Would you really call Schank discredited or is it just that his line of research petered out? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
:-)A lot of the reason why I was asking is because I'm effectively somewhat (how's that for a pair of conditionals? :-) relying on Schank's approach not having any showstoppers that I'm not aware of -- so if anyone else is aware of any surprise show-stopper's in his work, I'd love to have some pointers. Thanks. - Original Message - From: Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think he got much closer than most of the GOFAIers i.e. he's one of my old school AI heroes :) I thought for a long time his approach was one of the quickest ways to AGI and I still think anyone studying AGI should definitely study his approach closely. In the end any would-be AGIst (?:) will have to decide whether she adopts conceptual primitives or not - probably, apart from ideological arguments, mainly on the basis of how she decides to (have her AGI) ground its/his/her concepts (or not, as the case may be). Personally I'd say that a lot of mental acts do not reduce to his primitives easily (without losing a lot in the translation, to paraphrase a good movie:) and mental acts are quite important in my AGI architecture. Just personal opinion of course. =Jean-Paul - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
