Re: MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 August 17
Robot Groups | Search
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

General Robotics Forum - All aspects of robots and their applications. 

Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 August 17 amnon@textanalysis.com 08-31-2010
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by amnon@textanalysis.com on August 31, 2010, 12:40 pm


Hi,
Regarding the Mindforth, project, I don't know enough to offer an
overall critique.

I like the idea of multi-year projects that explore a single,
continuous line of research, as I believe that this benefits our field
tremendously.

Presumably those who snipe at this project have taken a long, deep
look at the code and the underlying ideas.

My main concern or question about this line of research is that,
offhand, it seems to me that much of the knowledge of the IA
(intelligent agent) is hardwired into code. I'd like to see an
explanation by the developer of underlying (declarative) knowledge
representations, if any. Or at least some notion that the IA can
modify its own knowledge and/or "learn" in some fashion.

Rules about the use of "I", "me", the verb to-be, and so on seem to be
stuck into code, rather than developed as part of a more flexible
representation.

Even so, I respect the notion that someone is pursuing a long term
project along whatever path, as much is learned along the way. This
contrasts sharply with most research (in the US at least), that is
year-to-year, hand-to-mouth, survivie-to-the-next-funding-cycle, and
so on.

Regards,
Amnon

Posted by David Mitchell on September 1, 2010, 2:33 am


On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:40:28 -0700, amnon@textanalysis.com wrote:

> Hi,
> Regarding the Mindforth, project, I don't know enough to offer an
> overall critique.

Take a look at http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html

> I like the idea of multi-year projects that explore a single, continuous
> line of research, as I believe that this benefits our field
> tremendously.

It would, were he as good a programmer as he claims to be, but he's not.
The main talent he displays in public is self-promotion.

> Presumably those who snipe at this project have taken a long, deep look
> at the code and the underlying ideas.

I did, many years ago when I first encountered him. All I remember about
it was a profound sense of disbelief that anyone would claim that it
represented any kind of breakthrough whatsoever, as it seemed trivial and
obvious.

> Even so, I respect the notion that someone is pursuing a long term
> project along whatever path, as much is learned along the way.

Not by Arthur - he's still banging the same nail he started with over
twenty years ago (and, amusingly, claimed was 99% finished in June 1999).

He has nothing to teach anyone else in the field either, so it's pretty
much been a total waste of time.

--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================

Posted by Ian Parker on September 1, 2010, 10:02 am


On Sep 1, 7:33 am, David Mitchell
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:40:28 -0700, am...@textanalysis.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Regarding the Mindforth, project, I don't know enough to offer an
> > overall critique.
> Take a look athttp://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html
> > I like the idea of multi-year projects that explore a single, continuous
> > line of research, as I believe that this benefits our field
> > tremendously.
> It would, were he as good a programmer as he claims to be, but he's not.
> The main talent he displays in public is self-promotion.
> > Presumably those who snipe at this project have taken a long, deep look
> > at the code and the underlying ideas.
> I did, many years ago when I first encountered him.  All I remember about
> it was a profound sense of disbelief that anyone would claim that it
> represented any kind of breakthrough whatsoever, as it seemed trivial and
> obvious.
> > Even so, I respect the notion that someone is pursuing a long term
> > project along whatever path, as much is learned along the way.  
> Not by Arthur - he's still banging the same nail he started with over
> twenty years ago (and, amusingly, claimed was 99% finished in June 1999).
> He has nothing to teach anyone else in the field either, so it's pretty
> much been a total waste of time.
> --
> ==================================================
======================
> = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
> = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
> ==================================================
======================

To me the projects we should be looking at are the following.

MOLTO - This is the EU language program. I have already referenced
this. I would like to know in more detail how they are attacking
multiple language translation without preferring one language as GT
does (English). A Von Neumann language that would be implied by
MOLTO's objectives is indeed the first step to AGI.

Web 3.0 - This implies the ability to put in links automatically.
MOLTO will in fact produce links.

Mizar The basis of Mizar is Tarski-Grothendieck set theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%E2%80%93Grothendieck_set_theory

OpenMath http://www.omdoc.org/pubs/omdoc1.2.pdf

OpenMath is now convertible to Mizar http://mizar.org/trybulec65/18.pdf

Open CYC which deals with atoms

All these things are interconnected. I would like to see something
which would interface up and connect to the above.


- Ian Parker

Posted by Ian Parker on September 1, 2010, 10:49 am


I feel I should add a few things.

1) Software engineers are adamant that the language is unimportant.
For this reason I would like to see things written in the more
mainstream languages like C+or Java. In fact in C++/Java the "class"
can be used as a concept designator.

2) I have brought in Mathematics. In fact MOLTO aims to be able to
translte mathematical statements. As AI consists in putting concepts
into a formal basis all AI (ultimately) must be presentable in
OpenMath. I must be able to do this with any statement even something
like Politics which one does not associate with mathematics. I don't
know whether MOLTO are aiming to base their "Grundsprache" on
OpenMath.

3) The EU CANNOT give any language (except Mathematics and a generated
Grundsprache) priority. GT gives English priority, everything is
translated into English first.


- Ian Parker

Posted by amnon@textanalysis.com on September 11, 2010, 9:24 pm


Hi,
Again, without deep research into the project at hand, I'll make these
sweeping statements. ;-)

The fact that some academics have their feathers ruffled by such a
project means nothing to me. There is no more political and turfy
arena than academia, in my experience, and no arena so far removed
from "reality" (apart from mental institutions perhaps).

Far more meaningful are demonstrations, blind tests, proofs embodied
in code, and the like.

And again I advocate for long term projects, especially with a goal of
achieving more than publications in a journal or an advanced degree.

As for overstated predictions, some famous AI people can be accused of
the same. In the 1950s, translating Russian to English was going to
be a snap. Further amusement may be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI (History of mainstream AI
research -- section)

Amnon

Related Posts
  • Subject
  • Posted In
  • Date
Latest Posts
  • Subject
  • Forum
  • RSS

The site map in XML format XML site map
 other useful resources:
Official Robosapien Website
Lego Mindstorms Website

Contact Us | Privacy Policy