I think we need the kind of interdisciplinary look at this problem which
it is getting now, Linda. Let me step into your field (law) for a minute.
Some years ago I took a commercial law course and I became quite
interested in what is called "the plain language movement" in law. The
Companies Act here (which we studied) is nightmarishly difficult to
understand. However, in Australia they turned it into a plain language
statute.
There is quite an art to this business of plain language
translation. Not many people have an aptitude for it. However, in theory
it can be done with any technical subject rendering it accessible to the
general public. That includes Professor Lenat's "Cyc" program
<http://www.Cyc.com>. Currently there are about 70 people working on Cyc
with the goal of a natural language conversational program ca. 2025 which
will converse as well as a human, read as well as a human; and by using
its conversing-reading ability it will also have excellent learning
ability.
Now my question is whether the 100 mb. program for Cyc can be turned
into a "plain language document" which can then be posted to a web site.
In theory it can but it will still take a lot of work to translate it from
whatever the present computer language is to EL (Everyday Language). If
that is done the Cyc Group could then ask for volunteers from all over the
world and in all fields to contribute to the plain language development of
Cyc. There may be some gifted amateurs out there who will "catch on" very
fast to the writing of a kind of software in EL. Not many of us have
insight into the calculus we deploy for word usage. But we can expect
some people to have a natural aptitude for this task. By putting plain
language Cyc up on a web site, maybe we can find them.
FWP
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, L Misek-Falkoff wrote:
> [Non-member submission]
>
> Greetings:
>
> On this question, I think the Lenat 'Context' work is quite pertinent. I
> followed a link you provided (thank you) and looked at a paper on Context.
> If it's ok to say so, Lenat & Misek-Falkoff are in accord, if not ( or
> though not of course), in practicality, similarly situated <g>.
>
> In 1971, part of my Doctoral Dissertation "Computing a Context' dealt with a
> theory of "Structural Thematics" (later developed into my "Claim Structure
> Grammar." I used 2 sets of 12 context codes as exemplary I think and took
> many years to represent same (using punch cards, those nice little
> fixed-field stroage devices later mappable to relational data bases). An
> English major in disrepute for using computers, and maybe just "because," I
> wrote at great length, but a Technical Report I have I could send u FWP.
> "Automated Contextual Analysis of Thematic Structure in Natural Language,
> A.R. Jennings Computing Center, under ARPA grant and in conjunction with
> M.I.T. Project MAC, and how does that date me!).
>
> Lenat's work takes cognizance of human abilities to contextualize their
> behavior and that of others. I must read the paper in detail later in the
> month, but I believe they found it too expensive and arduos to build up
> enumerative knowledge bases (in AI context) and developed a conceptual
> framework, which on brief review I myself conceptuatized as largely but not
> totally spatial & temporal, reminding me of Patrick Winston's early work
> and some aspects of Minsky.
>
> Sentences presented by Lenat show presuppositional and other context
> constructive encoding and decoding capacities of humans. This resonated with
> my approach of communication diagramming, and I was pleased to print out a
> nice degram from Lenat I will use with some of my ancient renditions. I
> thank you for the link in your prior post. Very interesting work.
>
> This now brings us (me) to Professor Ludkowski's succinct and lyrical but
> concrete rendering.
> ----------
> > The transhuman can beat the living daylights out of you at chess or Go or
> > > poker, and do the same to Deep Blue and Kasparov with scarcely more
> effort.
> > > Ve can hack source code, prove the Riemann Hypothesis, win a debate,
> offer
> > > psychiatric counseling, author a scientific paper, design experimental
> > > procedures, write a poem, paint a picture, and create new technologies.
> Any
> > > other questions.
> -----------
>
> My sense is that contextual concepts are responsive to the Professor's aptly
> poised contrasts, and also that canonical representations will probably
> (always?) have to characterize mans' efforts to achieve machine
> intelligence, if not to affect it, as previously discussed here. Whereas -
> who knows how human intelligence works? Not back to punch cards perhaps. A
> perhaps orthogonal issue you have broached, prior, is whether that matters.
>
> What think you. FWP?
>
> :) ldmf. At your service abidingly.
>
> <=email from: ldmf = L.D.Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D..
> include@worldnet.att.net NYState
> http://www.egroups.com/group/DisabilitiesParty.com (Chair, Chronic Pain
> Delegation)
> http://data.ole.net/news/details3.hbs?myrec=213 NPD 2000 (Sept) Online
> Convention/Coverage
> http://www.egroups.com/group/CYBERLIBEL-AND-EMAIL
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Poems_of_Pain_and_Promise
> http://www.egroups.com/group/ChronicPainCooperate
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Trigeminal_Neuralgia_and_LAW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franklin Wayne Poley <culturex@vcn.bc.ca>
> To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> Cc: <robot-for-president@egroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:28 PM
> Subject: [Robot-for-President] Re: Why would AI want to be friendly?
>
>
> > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> > eGroups eLerts
> > It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/9067/18/_/433155/_/969920932/
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> >
> > > Franklin Wayne Poley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have given hundreds of IQ tests over the course of my career and
> > > > participated in the development of one of them (Cattell's CAB). If I
> were
> > > > to measure transhuman-machine intelligence and human intelligence; and
> > > > compare the profiles, how would they differ?
> > >
> > > The transhuman would max out every single IQ test. It is just barely
> possible
> > > that a mildly transhuman AI running on sufficiently limited hardware
> might
> > > perform badly on a test of visual intelligence, or - if isolated from
> the
> > > Internet - of cultural knowledge. A true superintelligence would max
> those
> > > out as well.
> > >
> > > The transhuman can beat the living daylights out of you at chess or Go
> or
> > > poker, and do the same to Deep Blue and Kasparov with scarcely more
> effort.
> > > Ve can hack source code, prove the Riemann Hypothesis, win a debate,
> offer
> > > psychiatric counseling, author a scientific paper, design experimental
> > > procedures, write a poem, paint a picture, and create new technologies.
> Any
> > > other questions?
> > >
> > > -- -- -- -- --
> > > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
> > > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
> >
> > Yes. According to "Futurama" which is where I get my better ideas on
> > machine psychology, John Quincy Adding Machine was the first
> > Robot-for-President. According to your web site, "final-stage AI" will
> > reach "transhumanity...probably around 2008 or 2010". In which election
> > will you first run John Quincy Adding Machine?
> > FWP
> >
> >
> > *** The Era of Total Automation is Now ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machine Psychology:
<http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT