facts & RE: Project Earth
[email protected] ("Kevin Watt")
| Newsgroups | perl.ai |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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