Re: KR for Cogai/gentle reminder

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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>