Can you please clarify for me one ethical points behind OpenCog?
I have heard from the last RISE conference that Hanson's robots are connected to the cloud, which stores the knowledge gained by the robots and share this knowledge among them.
My straight question: is this knowledge base planned to be open or close? Or to be intellectual property of Hanson robotics?
I mean, you are talking about the openness and open architecture, what is nice. But what about knowledge base? Who owns that?
Would Hanson robotics be another kind of Google in this case? When every data, that you uploaded, belongs to Google.
I understand that this is the way how the companies usually protect their business from the competitors. And you have done a lot of work to teach your robots. But for me this would not be a beautiful future, when all gained knowledge would belong to one company.
Can you please comment your visions about this?
Thanks,
Ivan Bludov
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/bcdbc967-76f9-4dc4-9cd7-0d63e02a3d72%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/opencog/nUVcOeUIBvU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to opencog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA34wUyddcbGFtd5K1%3D_jzNQ%3D%2BsM%3DLuv4gbseoD%2BCmkWV%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAMyYmr8sz-ZMjsRWOiGLAoeh-D%2BWcAyEgyyoFhNAP%3DX0aJniWw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Linas Vepstas <linasv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
>
> The answer is "yes", but perhaps not the way you are expecting it. Its not
> like we have some defined format for "semantic triples" or whatever. There
> are a large number of rich data representation styles that have been used in
> a variety of projects. The commonalities in all of these are expressed as
> "atomese". That is, the standard protocol is "atomese".
That's exactly the type of thing I had in mind, actually (hence
serialization). Have you validated your assumption that the lack of
interest in the downloading of knowledge-bases is due to "nearly-zero
interest in knowledgebases", as you claim?
Or is it possible that the
atomese json files
are not providing enough expected utility?
What can
one do with those files, currently?
Can I simply drop them into a data
directory and have them be automatically consumed by OpenCog
or is
there a difficult process to get them to work?
Is atomspace able to
deduplicate imported atoms that are conceptually equivalent to atoms
already in the database,
but not exactly equal?