Grokbase Groups Perl ai August 2001
FAQ
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!
kevin@allpoetry.com <http://allPoetry.com>
"Here, write it, or it will be erased by the wind." - Isabel Allende

-----Original Message-----
From: steve@ladon.host4u.net On Behalf Of
Steve Vertigan
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:57 AM
To: perl-ai@perl.org
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

Search Discussions

  • Lee Goddard at Aug 23, 2001 at 10:53 am

    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 Yes.
    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
    No. They were academics with some savvy.
    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).
    A good idea even with trusted sources, I think.
    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?
    I'm not sure any of these are intended to be applications, Steve; rather
    they seem to be exactly what you say, data bases. Fantastic projects,
    all of them, but do we really need to split our efforts? If the MS thing
    is like most MS things, then I guess we do. You know that the Encarta
    edition for Italy claims Marconi invented the radio? And the UK edition
    claims the Scottish inventor Eddison came up with it? Neither version is
    free, of course.

    Lee
  • Lee Goddard at Aug 24, 2001 at 11:16 am

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Kevin Watt
    Sent: 22 August 2001 21:39
    To: perl-ai@perl.org
    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
  • Bernd Prager at Aug 24, 2001 at 3:02 pm
    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" <home@leegoddard.com>
    To: <kevin@allpoetry.com>; <perl-ai@perl.org>
    Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 4:16 AM
    Subject: RE: facts & RE: Project Earth

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Kevin Watt
    Sent: 22 August 2001 21:39
    To: perl-ai@perl.org
    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
  • Lee Goddard at Aug 24, 2001 at 3:26 pm

    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.
    Heheh - you are assuming that "we" are all "just" IT people!
    I did my initial degree in English, which included the reading of much
    cannonical modern philosophy, psychology, and metaphysics, to name
    but three. I was most fortunate to study my second degree, in AI,
    at Sussex, where all (if I'm not mistaken) of the AI staff have
    at least MAs, and usually doctorates, in non-IT subjects (as above).
    This creates a fantastic atmosphere of mixed ideas, and does seem
    to prove that whilst any reasonably intelligent person can pick up
    programming in most languages in a year or so, it takes much more
    work to find something to program - both an indea to impliment,
    and a means of implimentation.

    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 :))
    Exactly, and easy though it may seem, it is still proving to be extremely
    difficult. Limiting domain limits linguistic ambiguity, which is a real
    boon!

    That would be a big challenge.
    And, more importantly, expensive in time....
    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?
    Not me, sorry, but I am sure there are many many such discussion out there.

    Lee
  • Pete Sergeant at Aug 25, 2001 at 5:12 pm
    Anyone able to point to some good Natural Language Query processing papers
    or resources?

    +Pete
  • Andreas Marcel Riechert at Aug 25, 2001 at 5:55 pm

    "Pete Sergeant" <pete_sergeant@hotmail.com> writes:

    Anyone able to point to some good Natural Language Query processing papers
    or resources?

    +Pete
    "Good" will depend on your needs, so it is quiet difficult to
    answer. Anyway the following URL should help:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=site:citeseer.nj.nec.com+natural+language+query


    HTH,

    Andreas Marcel Riechert
  • Chris Meyer at Sep 10, 2001 at 7:01 pm
    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 <kevin@allpoetry.com>
    To: <perl-ai@perl.org>
    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!
    kevin@allpoetry.com <http://allPoetry.com>
    "Here, write it, or it will be erased by the wind." - Isabel Allende

    -----Original Message-----
    From: steve@ladon.host4u.net On Behalf Of
    Steve Vertigan
    Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:57 AM
    To: perl-ai@perl.org
    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

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupai @
categoriesperl
postedAug 22, '01 at 8:30p
activeSep 10, '01 at 7:01p
posts8
users6
websiteperl.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase