3 ms·

It's best to just let Cyc people continue to think they matter and let them stay busy expanding their knowledge base in the church of first order logic. It'll

by seiji 13y ago

It's best to just let Cyc people continue to think they matter and let them stay busy expanding their knowledge base in the church of first order logic. It'll never go anywhere, but it's better to keep them all contained in one place rather than polluting other fields of study.

pnathan 13y ago
Okay, that was way too nasty and out of line.
ScottBurson 13y ago
See, this is what I mean (see my reply to eschaton). I take it then, seiji, that you also completely disagree with Levesque's program as expressed in section 4.4 of his paper?
- seiji 13y ago
  Absolutely. 4.4 is a full endorsement of Cyc (and don't get me started on "Cyc" vs "OpenCyc"). Second 4.4 looks a little like "graphplan reborn" or "generic AI approaches from the 80s." Discrete codified knowledge is not the stuff the universe is made of. The problem Cyc will never solve is the "a picture is worth a thousand words" problem. Describing everything in a relational, hierarchal, predicate calculus arrogantly ignores the unrelated multidimensionality of, well, everything.
giardini 13y ago
A merciful end to Cyc funding might be better. Monies saved could be spent elsewhere and termination would free all involved without the expectation that they produce something of value. Although it might cause some grudges ("If we'd only been allowed to add the last 2000 rules, I am certain it would have achieved consciousness!") everybody needs a new start now and then. Had Lenat published working versions or even complete explanations of his previous software (AM, EURISKO) I might be a little more sympathetic. Cyc, the project that never ends, appears to be in a state of perpetual partial implementation, it's most notable product being a constant stream of money into the project. But look on the bright side: perhaps I'm completely wrong, Cyc has actually achieved AI, and the NSA is using it right now!

by seiji 13y ago

pnathan 13y ago

Okay, that was way too nasty and out of line.

ScottBurson 13y ago

See, this is what I mean (see my reply to eschaton). I take it then, seiji, that you also completely disagree with Levesque's program as expressed in section 4.4 of his paper?

seiji 13y ago
Absolutely. 4.4 is a full endorsement of Cyc (and don't get me started on "Cyc" vs "OpenCyc"). Second 4.4 looks a little like "graphplan reborn" or "generic AI approaches from the 80s." Discrete codified knowledge is not the stuff the universe is made of. The problem Cyc will never solve is the "a picture is worth a thousand words" problem. Describing everything in a relational, hierarchal, predicate calculus arrogantly ignores the unrelated multidimensionality of, well, everything.

giardini 13y ago

A merciful end to Cyc funding might be better. Monies saved could be spent elsewhere and termination would free all involved without the expectation that they produce something of value. Although it might cause some grudges ("If we'd only been allowed to add the last 2000 rules, I am certain it would have achieved consciousness!") everybody needs a new start now and then. Had Lenat published working versions or even complete explanations of his previous software (AM, EURISKO) I might be a little more sympathetic. Cyc, the project that never ends, appears to be in a state of perpetual partial implementation, it's most notable product being a constant stream of money into the project. But look on the bright side: perhaps I'm completely wrong, Cyc has actually achieved AI, and the NSA is using it right now!