Re: KR for Cogai/gentle reminder

Hi Adeel,

i've added it to the public library resource i've been developing recently:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tYFIggw8MIY5fD2u-nbwFRM6wqrhdmQZ
and will sort it into the devops folder (most likely) when i get to it.

In one of my diagrams produced in 2019:
https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*iDV7e5JuUltlcavjyn4yCg.png there's a
choice illustrated between systems designed to supply 'information' to
conscious observers vs. those designed to supply 'knowledge' which in-turn,
relates to socioeconomic choices.

other diagrams:
https://medium.com/webcivics/inforgs-the-collective-info-sphere-67a660516cfd


It appears I may be in the wrong group; as a consequence of differences
about the objective outcomes sought by producing technology to be employed
by the technology platforms that define humanity.

I am thinking this isn't the best place for me to pursue goals of
importance to me...  obviously, the desire is about open-standards (not
rents on minds).

On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 12:41, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hay Timothy and all
>
> This list is about KR in AI
>
> Your question is pertinent, but it has been answered in literature many
> many years ago
> [image: image.png]
> From A General Knowledge Representation
> Model of Concepts Carlos Ramirez and Benjamin Valdes
> Tec of Monterrey Campus Queretaro, DASL4LTD Research Group
> Mexico
>
> I personally start every talk and paper on AI KR precisely with this
> diagram, which serves to provide context (from Ramirez Valdez)
>
> file:///C:/Users/paola/Downloads/InTech-A_general_knowledge_representation_model_of_concepts.pdf
>

whilst I understand some may be able to access that file - morally, i don't
engage in that sort of behaviour.


>
> KR is a big topic and it applies to many disciplines
> In AI, KR has a specific function /roles (as discussed in many books that
> it would be advisable to take sight of, since they answer many questions
> being raised here)
> KR has limitations, so does ML
> In my research, I identify novel roles for KR, that is, for example to
> expose deepfakes,
> and other things I cannot explain in a post (but that I can try to
> summarise in a webinar)
>

having had a role in the development of media systems for a long-time (2000
onwards, in areas from early VOD to IPTV / HybridTV, digital cinema, etc.);
the issue, from my perspective about maintaining human agency - is about
being able to authenticate the use of media that contains a persons
likeness - sometimes, alterations may be approved (ie: changing the
language / lipsync) other times, that's not the case.  so in the RWW &
credentials work: a means to address these issues was forged via
'mico-project' (as an example) as is noted;
https://medium.com/webcivics/media-analytics-59a7cb27dc76 several years
ago, although,that doesn't really get into the 'hypermedia content
packages' or other stuff - that's probably 'out of scope' here (perhaps
even more broadly, at w3c, but the HbbTV standards (2007-8 from memory); do
use W3C standards, which is why WebID-TLS may work with the HbbTV stuff -
so that people can control the way privacy interacts with their TV (dynamic
content, etc.) as a multi-user IoT device (in a multi-device setting);
understanding, that sort of knowledge representation may also be 'off
topic'...



>
> What may be useful is to provide an reading list for people to
> familiarise themselves with the notions being discussed and problems being
> tackled
> I started one on the AI KR CG home page somewhere, needs updating
>
> I do teach a course that I may be able to offer as a MOOC in the future
> :-)
>
> Adeel, YES Brachman and Levesque, but so many others
>
> Adeel and Timothy, if you are interested, please contribute to the list of
> resources
> already started on the CG pages somewhere, you can also add references and
> your own annotations
>

I hope my contributions have helped - noting - i am not funded for any of
these activities - my focus has been on seeking to improve the
circumstances for humanity; which isn't something that's very well
supported by most funded roles (venture capital, etc.); i guess, if that
wasn't the case - then perhaps TimBL would still be at W3C whilst pursuing
'solid' (or cross cloud, or rww, or 'dataspaces' or whatever).

anyhow.  it does sound as though you've got a plan...

FWIW:
per: https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
https://medium.com/webcivics/a-future-knowledge-age-2e3f5095c67  noted:
https://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg

the video can be found:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200515000000*/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_2YWiaPJ6A
(i'm probably going to end-up trying to find all the, fairly difficult to
find otherwise - parts - of a story, about a journey - and putting it into:
https://timeline.knightlab.com/ )  yet; finally, i am considerate of the
situation where - with these 'digital wallets' that are said to define our
''self sovereign' identity' - which practically, is actually being used via
the context of 'contract law' - that there's no facility that was endorsed
to be supported & made, to aid in the communications of values; like, human
beings being able to put into those contracts, where their 'identity' or
other 'verifiable credentials' are being demanded - for access, perhaps -
to a system that controls their address book; that there's nothing made to
help people also provide into that contractual arrangement, internationally
most of the time - instruments like the universal declaration of human
rights; the short version says 'rights' not 'rulers'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRGhrYmUjU4  - but the preamble says -
dignity, something that's not really about companies; which is probably why,

regardless of my desires otherwise - W3C is not the best place for me to
continue to do the work i've been doing over a very long time, to support
those sorts of considerations - around rights, human dignity.

which - if - it is not made to be part of an agreement, then it is
considered to be - 'off topic' should anyone seek to proclaim a breach of
agreement, and then, by peaceful means - seek resolution / remedy...

in any case - i hope that helps, I might drop off the list, as I now have
concerns...

cheers,

timothy holborn.



>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:06 AM 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>