Re: KR for Cogai/gentle reminder

Paola
Indeed .. having two or more W3C communities enables more than two or more
points of view

Carl
It was a pleasure to clarify


On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 5:25 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Gabriel and all
> Brachman - and others - wrote the Bible of KR
> but not many have studied it
>
> On My shelf, the bible of KR and the bibles of AI stand side by side
> and the former is on top, but anyone decides how to organize their stack
> according to their priorities
>
> We become researchers because we do not take things at face value
> and because we like to add new chapters to old bibles
>
> To consider KR as a subset of AI may be useful in some context, to some
> extent
> but it is the root of many shortcomings that are causing widespread
> concern.
> People have started to realize that AI without KR is kind of nonsense (it
> is not AI)
> Brachman wrote explictity that AI cannot be separated from KR
> In systems and software engineering, we design the KR
> BEFORE the AI is implemented, because AI is nothing more than execution of
> KR
>
> In the same way that a software program (the logical representation of
> what the software does and how it does it) can be written on paper, or even
> theorized and then implemented using different languages and programming
> structures - that is the same function can be reproduced by manipulating
> and rendering the logical design in a variety of ways
> so AI can be generated using different algorithms.
> KR is ultimately the language in which the AI algorithm is written
> It needs to be written up BEFORE it can be executed to make sure it runs
> as intended
>
> Experimentally though, for example in genetic algorithms, a program can
> run without being written. These are interesting to be studied, and surely
> offer advantages, but
> have shortcomings. We cannot use a genetic algorithm to support policies
> (the set of organisational, behavioural rules that algorithms must adhere
> to)
> Ethics, reliability etc of AI are all implemented via policies.
>
>  It has been noted that KR is not practiced nor taught correctly
> especially in teaching (Morgernstern), however thirty years after the
> problem was lucidly identified and posited to the AI community, nothing has
> been done to fill this gap.
>
> AI  can be very powerful.  So is knowledge
>
> When people have knowledge, and the mechanisms to leverage knowledge
> to produce intelligence, they cannot be as easily manipulated
>
> Ultimately, the entire education system, media  machinery, scientific
> establishment and the technology that serves to fuel conflict rather than
> resolve it,
> are all tied in into correct and adequate Knowledge representation
>
> Technology (AI) is a subset of Mind (cogntion, knowledge, reasoning)
> Academic institutions can control what it is said about technology and mind
> but not free thinking itself, that is the only thing we have left
>
>  @carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>   nobody has to agree with a
> single point of view
>  I started this AI KR CG to share state of the art thinking and research
> and others are welcome to do the same,  I share many of the hundreds of
> papers I have to read to be able to make novel contribution and advance the
> state of the art
> I appreciate that the industry is trying to control it
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 11:14 PM Gabriel Lopes <gabriellopes9102@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> It is really amazing the opportunity to have discussions like these,
>> where fundamental concepts world-wide used, even across generations of
>> thinkers and specialist practitioners on related-fields, are dissected and
>> analysed.
>>
>> Thank you, @Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> , for bringing your
>> disruptive point of view, principally when the *Bible *of AI tells
>> explicitly the opposite.
>> And, +1 for the perception of *giftness* about the possibility of having
>> books, such as Norvig, available online.
>>
>> If I got your point, *knowledge *becomes a super-entity of materialized
>> and conceptual entities, such as circuits and deductions, while
>> *representation* comes as the manifested form passible of human
>> perceiving, discussion, and understanding, such as Diagrams, Words, and OWL
>> classes.
>>
>> More or less somehow?
>>
>> So, being *AI* an object of human interpretability of *artificial *and
>> *intelligence* concepts - what isn't 'natural' (was already there) and
>> capacity of inferring, deducting, perceiving, and realizing, just to cite a
>> few, respectively -, *KR*, as a super-entity of *concept* itself,
>> intuitively becomes a superset of Artificial Intelligence, as the
>> representation of knowledge would surpass our notions of what is artificial
>> and intelligence.
>>
>> --
>> Although, I would also partially agree with Adeel.
>>
>> I had used Norvig in AI classes about KR some years ago, and, even if he
>> have used the new hype term, also due to cognition and psychology
>> revolution in the 70s and 80s and boosted by Intellicorp at the time, the
>> discussion about KR in the book is mostly related to logical relationships
>> among concepts, terms, and knowledge.
>>
>> But, as Paola stated, things are changing all the time, and, with the
>> virtual revolution in recent years, maybe our notion of Knowledge,
>> representation, natural, artifficial, and intelligence itself, will maybe
>> suffer some modifications...
>>
>> Well, in any case, I`m hoping to be here for the next few years to see
>> how this super interesting discussion will evolve ;-)!!
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> Em dom., 30 de out. de 2022 às 17:50, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
>> metadataportals@yahoo.com> escreveu:
>>
>>> Thank you Adeel for pointing out that KR is a subset of AI. And not only
>>> computer scientists would agree but basically most computational linguists,
>>> mathematicians and philosophers too.
>>>
>>> Milton Ponson
>>> GSM: +297 747 8280
>>> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
>>> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
>>> Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to
>>> all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied
>>> mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 09:19:39 PM AST, Paola Di Maio <
>>> paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Adeel.
>>>
>>> Thank you for giving more info about your background
>>> I apologise, since many posts were exploratory about KR
>>> It is amazing how someone can be a graduate of CS and still learning
>>> about KR
>>> That CS curricula have considered KR as a separate topic is regrettable
>>>
>>> It is also well documented that KR is only taught in a limited way in
>>> traditional curricula
>>> A topic I already discussed and published about
>>>
>>> Brachman wrote  that AI and KR cannot be separated, must have been fifty
>>> years ago?
>>>  but AI field has evolved in a very funny way - resulting in current
>>> problems
>>> (also written and talked  about that extensively)
>>>
>>> KR however is a bigger topic beyond AI. The diagram shred yesterday
>>> makes it so clear (this is why is one of my favourite
>>>
>>>  I have already extensively posted about, and written on
>>> is that because AI is becoming now relevant to all other fields of
>>> practice (see the diagrams posted yesterday) KR needs to be designed
>>> accordingly
>>>  Finally, despite much talk of general intelligence of recent years
>>> the field of AI has developed in rather narrow ways,
>>>
>>> The work I do, and share here in snippets, is precisely taking into
>>> account he
>>> dynamic context where everything is going
>>>
>>> I apologize if I cannot reply to every posts,  especially where
>>> the questions and issues brought up have been extensively addressed
>>> in several years of posts publications and talks which I have done my
>>> best to share here
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 8:59 AM Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Well, I come from CS background. I read those books 20 years ago. I am
>>> not a newbie! LOL
>>> And, AI is a sub-field of CS, while KRR is often considered a sub-field
>>> of AI.
>>> Literally, every CS department treats it as a separate research area
>>> within AI.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adeel
>>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 01:54, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Adeel,  it is really good that you are reading the books
>>> Norvig book is a great resource and the free copy online a gift to
>>> humanity
>>> But we must keep in mind that everything is relative
>>> Norvig point of view  on KR is relative to his field of practice
>>>
>>> Based on the diagram shared yesterday AI is one of the fields of
>>> application
>>> for KR,
>>>
>>> From a systems viewpoint, AI is a type of system
>>> If you place AI at the top of your conceptual hierarchy, everything will
>>> be a subset of it
>>> (including creativity, intelligence, knowledge etc)
>>> I think clarifying this top level category is fundamental. (was it you
>>> who brought up the THING in owl or someone else)
>>>
>>> This is why, we need to define our questions during dialogue.
>>> In my ontology, THING is knowledge
>>>
>>> I consider AI as a subset of KR because my top level category is general
>>> knowledge/cogniti. AI is a subset (a type of system based on ) natural
>>> intelligence
>>> It is regrettable that intelligent processes are  considered a subset of
>>> AI in CS literature
>>>
>>> PDM
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 8:40 AM Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> No, that is not true. KR is a subset of AI.
>>>
>>> See Norvig book which is used in many foundational AI courses which
>>> teaches KR is a subset of AI.
>>>
>>> Norvig <https://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/cs470/materials/aima2010.pdf>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adeel
>>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 01:33, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Milton
>>> Please note that AI is a subset of KR  not viceversa
>>> Please also be reminded that I have often posted topics from other WC3
>>> lists
>>> where I spottend an overlap with KR (its all the archive)
>>> That said, if you would like to start by auditing all other CGs and WGs
>>> for KR
>>> relevant issues/problems that we could at least take into account here,
>>> that would be
>>> most welcome and most useful.
>>> If you do knowledge audit  for KR topic/open questions across W3C
>>> communities I will personally award you with a prize and even a plaque that
>>> you can hang on your wall
>>> Keeping in mind that things change all the time, you could limit by time
>>> frame
>>> (say in the last ten years or less?)
>>> PDM
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 2:57 AM ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
>>> metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to point out that KR is one of the central themes for the
>>> entire field commonly known as artificial intelligence.
>>>
>>> What is a Knowledge Representation?
>>> A perspective from the MIT AI Lab, MIT AI Lab and Symbolics, Inc. and
>>> MIT Lab for Computer Science
>>> http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/ftp/k-rep.html
>>>
>>> So what we are doing in the AIKR W3 CG is basically a SUBSET of every
>>> other AI CG in the W3 Community Groups
>>>
>>> Now a basic tenet of scientific dialogue is the possibility to disagree
>>> upon terminology, scope and findings, results and even theories.
>>>
>>> The biggest problem in AI today is that we cannot even agree upon what
>>> actually is AI, what it should be and what are its main characteristics,
>>> and unfortunately this also applies to knowledge representation.
>>>
>>> But because every field of scientific endeavor and engineering nowadays
>>> utilizes AI, and every field has its own knowledge that needs formal
>>> representation AIKR is at the core of all of this.
>>>
>>> I sense that the CogAI focuses of the cognitive processes involved in
>>> the creation of knowledge and how to best capture this in formal
>>> representation, based upon their description of objectives.
>>>
>>> So Paola is PARTIALLY right in trying to separate the work being done.
>>>
>>> But let's not waste the possible synergies to be gained. We could
>>> TOGETHER produce deliverables (reports, articles) and the central role of
>>> KR in AI, and how this relates to cognitive processes that are also central
>>> to all AI.
>>>
>>> Let's define this common ground and define the possible common
>>> objectives and potential deliverables. Because to quote the European Union,
>>> objectives for open, inclusive, explainable and ethical AI also presuppose
>>> open , inclusive, explainable and ethical knowledge and consequently
>>> cognitive processes and underlying architectures for such.
>>>
>>> I have tasked myself with providing an overview of what is AI, using a
>>> timeline, with a concise summary of academic fields involved and how the EU
>>> objectives can be achieved.
>>>
>>> Anyone willing to collaborate is welcome to contact me.
>>>
>>> I have a vested personal interest to utilize AI for the common good
>>> defined in sustainable development guidelines of the UN as well, because AI
>>> could be instrumental in tackling seemingly insurmountable problems like
>>> climate change, and other global issues plaguing our modern world.
>>>
>>> Let's agree to be able to disagree, but not let it stand in our way to
>>> collaborate.
>>>
>>> Milton Ponson
>>> GSM: +297 747 8280
>>> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
>>> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
>>> Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to
>>> all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied
>>> mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:28:23 PM AST, Adeel <
>>> aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> extract from the book:
>>>
>>> "
>>>
>>> Show that minimizing abnormality will work if we add the
>>>
>>> assertion
>>>
>>>
>>> *All Québecois are abnormal Canadians,*
>>>
>>> but will not work if we only add
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Québecois are typically abnormal Canadians.*
>>>
>>> "
>>>
>>>
>>> That's harsh... LOL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 03:32, Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Perhaps, Paola is referring to the theory in this book -> Brachman and
>>> Levesque
>>> <https://www.cin.ufpe.br/~mtcfa/files/in1122/Knowledge%20Representation%20and%20Reasoning.pdf>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adeel
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 03:06, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Noted.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning
>>>
>>> In terms of knowledge representation, for humanity, my thoughts have
>>> been that it's about the ability for people to represent the evidence of a
>>> circumstance in a court of law.  If solutions fail to support the ability
>>> to be used in these circumstances, to successfully represent knowledge -
>>> which can be relied upon in a court of law; a circumstance that should
>>> never be wanted, but desirable to support peace.
>>>
>>> Then, I guess, I'd be confused about the purposeful definion; or the
>>> useful purpose of any such tools being produced & it's relationship, by
>>> design, to concepts like natural justice.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice
>>>
>>> Let me know if I am actually "off topic" per the intended design
>>> outcomes.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Timothy Holborn.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022, 11:55 am Paola Di Maio, <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just as a reminder, this list is about sharing knowledge, research and
>>> practice in AI KR, The intersection with KR and CogAI may also be relevant
>>> here (and of interest to me)
>>>
>>> If people want to discuss CogAI not in relation to KR, please use the
>>> CogAI CG list?
>>> What I mean is that: if KR is not of interest/relevance to a post, then
>>> why post here?
>>>
>>> What is KR, its relevance and limitations is a vast topic, written about
>>> in many scholarly books, but also these books are not adequately covering
>>> the topic, In that sense, the topic of KR itself, without further
>>> qualification, is too vast to be discussed without narrowing it down to a
>>> specific problem/question
>>> KR in relation to CogAI has been the subject of study for many of us for
>>> many years, and it is difficult to discuss/comprehend/relate to for those
>>> who do not share the background. I do not think this list can fill the huge
>>> gap left by academia, however there are great books freely available online
>>> that give some introduction .
>>> When it comes to the application of KR to new prototypes, we need to
>>> understand what these prototypes are doing, why and how. Unfortunately NN
>>> fall short of general intelligence and intellegibility for humans.
>>>
>>> Adeel, thank you for sharing the paper 40 years of Cognitive
>>> Architectures
>>> I am not sure you were on the list back then, but I distributed the
>>> resource as a working reference for this list and anyone interested in
>>> February 2021, and have used the resource as the basis for my research on
>>> the intersection AI KR/CogAI since
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aikr/2021Feb/0017.html
>>>
>>> Dave: the topics KR, AI, CogAI and consciousness, replicability,
>>> reliability, and all the issues brought up in the many posts in this thread
>>> and other thread are too vast
>>> to be discussed meaningfully in a single thread
>>>
>>> May I encourage the breaking down of topics/issues making sure the
>>> perspective and focus of KR (including its limitations) are not lost in
>>> the long threads
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>> (Chair hat on)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 6:23 PM Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> To start with might be useful to explore 'society of mind
>>> <http://aurellem.org/society-of-mind/index.html>' and 'soar' as point
>>> of extension.
>>>
>>> 40 years of cognitive architecture
>>> <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10462-018-9646-y.pdf>
>>>
>>> Recently, Project Debater
>>> <https://research.ibm.com/interactive/project-debater/> also came into
>>> the scene. Although, not quite as rigorous in Cog or KR.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adeel
>>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 02:05, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you all for contributing to the discussion
>>>
>>> the topic is too vast - Dave I am not worried if we aree or not agree,
>>> the universe is big enough
>>>
>>> To start with I am concerned whether we are talking about the same thing
>>> altogether. The expression human level intelligence is often used to
>>> describe tneural networks, but that is quite ridiculous comparison. If the
>>> neural network is supposed to mimic human level intelligence, then we
>>> should be able to ask; how many fingers do humans have?
>>> But this machine is not designed to answer questions, nor to have this
>>> level of knowledge about the human anatomy. A neural network is not AI in
>>> that sense
>>> it fetches some images and mixes them without any understanding of what
>>> they are
>>> and the process of what images it has used, why and what rationale was
>>> followed for the mixing is not even described, its probabilistic. go figure.
>>>
>>> Hay, I am not trying to diminish the greatness of the creative neural
>>> network, it is great work and it is great fun. But a) it si not an artist.
>>> it does not create something from scratch b) it is not intelligent really,
>>> honestly,. try to have a conversation with a nn
>>>
>>> This is what KR does: it helps us to understand what things are and how
>>> they work
>>> It also helps us to understand if something is passed for what it is not
>>> *(evaluation)
>>> This is is why even neural network require KR, because without it, we
>>> don know what it is supposed
>>> to do, why and how and whether it does what it is supposed to do
>>>
>>> they still have a role to play in some computation
>>>
>>> * DR Knowledge representation in neural networks is not transparent, *
>>> *PDM I d say that either is lacking or is completely random*
>>>
>>>
>>> DR Neural networks definitely capture knowledge as is evidenced by their
>>> capabilities, so I would disagree with you there.
>>>
>>>
>>> PDM  capturing knowledge is not knowledge representation, in AI,
>>> capturing knowledge is only one step, the categorization of knowledge is
>>> necessary to the reasoning
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *We are used to assessing human knowledge via examinations, and I don’t
>>> see why we can’t adapt this to assessing artificial minds *
>>> because assessments is very expensive, with varying degrees of
>>> effectiveness, require skills and a process -  may not be feasible when AI
>>> is embedded to test it/evaluate it
>>>
>>>
>>> We will develop the assessment framework as we evolve and depend upon AI
>>> systems. For instance, we would want to test a vision system to see if it
>>> can robustly perceive its target environment in a wide variety of
>>> conditions. We aren’t there yet for the vision systems in self-driving cars!
>>>
>>> Where I think we agree is that a level of transparency of reasoning is
>>> needed for systems that make decisions that we want to rely on.  Cognitive
>>> agents should be able to explain themselves in ways that make sense to
>>> their users, for instance, a self-driving car braked suddenly when it
>>> perceived a child to run out from behind a parked car.  We are less
>>> interested in the pixel processing involved, and more interested in whether
>>> the perception is robust, i.e. the car can reliably distinguish a real
>>> child from a piece of newspaper blowing across the road where the newspaper
>>> is showing a picture of a child.
>>>
>>> It would be a huge mistake to deploy AI when the assessment framework
>>> isn’t sufficiently mature.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Gabriel Lopes
>> *Interoperability as Jam's sessions!*
>> *Each system emanating the music that crosses itself, instrumentalizing
>> scores and ranges...*
>> *... of Resonance, vibrations, information, data, symbols, ..., Notes.*
>>
>> *How interoperable are we with the Music the World continuously offers to
>> our senses?*
>> *Maybe it depends on our foundations...?*
>>
>