4 ms·
"properly understood" is the whole point. That's the hard problem they are trying to solve.
by aristus 16y ago
"properly understood" is the whole point. That's the hard problem they are trying to solve.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- gojomo 16y agoSure, but it does put somewhat of a cap on the amount of reference material you need to import. And a fairly low cap in the tens of GB: Wikipedia/Wiktionary/WordNet/Freebase/J!Archive is probably enough. Beyond that, you want software/heuristics. You might find far more data helpful to initially create that software, but once it's created, the reference material to have at hand can come from a small set of sources.
- knowledgesale 16y agothere is a project on formalization of the human "common sense" with (partly) open source database. take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
- jokermatt999 16y agoFor those who were intrigued by the story of Eurisko (that space fleet battle playing bot that completely crushed the competition and then was impossible to find decent info on) the developer of Eurisko, Douglas Lenat, is the one who started this program.
- sliverstorm 16y agoWhich is especially interesting, considering the other competitors are coming from exactly the opposite direction. They are playing the same game, but facing completely different challenges.
- pwnguin 16y agoBut properly understanding what? You can diagram the question all you want, but if you don't know the answer it's pointless, no? Wikipedia is just a source of data. Given that Jeopardy focuses a lot on literature, I'd also throw in gutenburg project books. And probably a newspaper archive going way back, like the NYT.