zlacker

>>mdszy+(OP)
last time I looked at OpenCyc's knowledge base, the information encoded was all strangely specific academic stuff - like very fine classifications and relationships between species of tapeworms and of fungus. There was very little daily-life common-sense knowledge, even though that's often the hook in interviews and articles about Cyc's purpose. I'm not sure why that's true - maybe it's hard to decide what the 'facts' are about normal human life, but the more academic something is, the more there's a consensus, rationalized 'reality'

>>jes519+yy
Employee of Cycorp here. A few thoughts:

- At least right now, we have a good amount of common-sense information about the world (I don't know when "last time" was for you).

- That said, we have a lot of highly specialized knowledge in various domains, so if you took a random sample of the knowledge base (KB) it may not be as common-sense-centric as you'd hope. But the KB is also incredibly large, so that doesn't mean we don't have much common-sense, just that we have even more other stuff.

- Often for contracts we get paid to construct lots of domain-specific knowledge, even if the project also uses the more general knowledge, so this biases the distribution some.

- Information that's already well-taxonomized is low-hanging fruit for this kind of system; its representation doesn't take nearly as much extra thought and consideration, so it's a faster process, which also biases the distribution some.

>>brundo+3C
What are some interesting examples of common-sense that has been formalized and encoded?

>>jey+qC
One of our primary test suites is what we call "Common Sense Tests". They comprise a set of common-sense questions that require some leaps of reasoning to answer, and we use them as a metric of our common-sense knowledge. So for example:

  Would a human dislike touching a/an incandescent bulb while the electric lamp is powered on?

  Yes.

  ?HUMAN dislikes being a performer in the ?TOUCHING.
    • Embodied agents dislike performing acts that cause them discomfort.
    • ?HUMAN is an embodied perceptual agent.
      • ?HUMAN is a human.
        • Every human is an embodied perceptual agent.
    • ?HUMAN deliberately performed ?TOUCHING.
    • ?TOUCHING causes some discomfort.
      • Touching something that is too hot to touch causes pain.
      • The quantity range pain includes all points in some discomfort.
      • ?PART is too hot to touch.
        • When an incandescent bulb is on, it is too hot to touch.
        • ?PART is an incandescent bulb.
        • ?PART’s current state is powered on.
          • When a lamp with a bulb is on, so is the bulb.
          • ?PART is a physical part of ?DEVICE.
            • ?PART is a physical part of ?DEVICE.
            • ?PART is a physical part of ?PART.
          • ?DEVICE’s current state is powered on.
          • ?PART is a light bulb.
            • ?PART is an incandescent bulb.
            • Every incandescent bulb is a light bulb.
          • ?DEVICE is an electric lamp.
      • ?PART was affected during ?TOUCHING.

We have a couple thousand of these, which we've aimed to make as diverse as possible