Re: facts & RE: Project Earth

Hi everybody,

I agree basically, that non IT folks should definitively participate
in that kind of projects. The thing is usually that "we" should
show them what we are able to do and they take leadership
then and determine what to do with that.

Why don't we try to implement a chatterbot based on conversational rules,
and an underlying common knowledge base and try to determine current
and shifting domains. The project I have seen until now are limited to
specific domains.
(Because that's much easier :))
That would be a big challenge.
I have seen years ago a publication where these rules for "W*" questions
(what,
who, where, why ...) were discussed but I can't remember anymore where it
was.
Does anybody remember?

-- Bernd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Goddard" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 4:16 AM
Subject: RE: facts & RE: Project Earth


>
>
> > -----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