• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:01:00 +0100
• Cc: John Cowan <cowan@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1678843@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1678843@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

Dare Obasanjo wrote:


> As far as I'm concerned this is an unfeasible problem to attempt to
> solve and claiming otherwise is as ludicrous as the claims many were
> making about AI in the 80s and about the Semantic Web in the 90s. 

Well you stitched things up by requesting vanilla :) I could ask 
similar questions about a vanilla human (a baby?) learning 
computerEnglisch. Nonethess I suspect what could Koza calls a GP or 
what Sussman calls a one shot learner could have a crack at this 
problem. For grand claims I agree with you, but there are some AI 
learning technologies that are useful.

Bill de hÓra

• References:
  • RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by Date: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible?
• Previous by thread: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by thread: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread