- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:46:42 -0500
- To: public-aikr@w3.org
Paola, to me, the most interesting part of the presentation you cite is Brooks' "subsumption architecture": perception --> planning --> actuation. However, my interest focuses on the human level, with particular attention to the planning stage of his "architecture". https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/consciously-connected-communities-owen-ambur/ I viewed his "manifesto" at http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/books%20&%20movies.html#f-m to see if I could find the makings of a plan to render in StratML format ... but was not sufficiently motivated by what I saw there to take the time and effort to try to decipher his plan, if he actually has one. Among my pet peeves is the usage of words like "manifesto," "framework," and "policy". To me, those words imply their authors don't really know what they are trying to achieve or, at least, have not thought through the logic of what is required to realize (accomplish) it. If they had, they would have a performance plan. Moreover, if they were civic minded, they'd publish it in open, standard, machine-readable format. BTW, if this group has no plan to produce any particular output, much less any outcome, I don't think I can justify participating merely to engage in aimless and perhaps endless dialogue (input and feedback). Owen On 11/22/2019 9:24 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote: > I think I found the culprit, at least one of the papers responsible > for this madness of doing > AI without KR > https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs331b/2016/presentations/paper17.pdf > I find the paper very interesting although I disagree > > Do people know of other papers that purport a similar hypothesis (that > KR is not indispensable in AI for whatever reason?) > thanks a lot > PDM >
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2019 04:46:45 UTC