Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The frame problem makes complete action specification vir... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The frame problem makes complete action specification virtually impossible in common-sense AI settings

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Specifying all effects of an action in a common-sense environment is practically infeasible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Specifying all non-effects of an action in a common-sense environment is even more difficult
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Specifying all preconditions that guarantee successful execution of an action admits indefinite extension
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Shanahan and Thielscher's causal theories of action (ESP, SCIFF) show frame problems dissolve under formal causal minimization assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If default persistence is built into the action formalism itself, non-effects require no explicit specification, undermining P2's force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Logical circumscription, as Lifschitz demonstrated, provides systematic closure over non-effects without case-by-case enumeration.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dreyfus's phenomenological critique suggests the frame problem is an artifact of propositional representation, not a feature of action itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Skilled human agents navigate common-sense environments via embodied know-how (Ryle's 'knowing how') rather than exhaustive propositional specification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the impossibility stems from a representational choice rather than the nature of action, the claim conflates a design limitation with a principled barrier.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismCausation

    Related

    Dreyfus's phenomenological critique suggests the frame problem is an artifact of...If default persistence is built into the action formalism itself, non-effects re...If the impossibility stems from a representational choice rather than the nature...Logical circumscription, as Lifschitz demonstrated, provides systematic closure ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Shanahan and Thielscher's causal theories of action (ESP, SCIFF) show frame prob...Skilled human agents navigate common-sense environments via embodied know-how (R...Specifying all effects of an action in a common-sense environment is practically...Specifying all non-effects of an action in a common-sense environment is even mo...Specifying all preconditions that guarantee successful execution of an action ad...

    Similar

    The frame problem requires finding the smallest possible specification...78%The formulation of the frame problem presupposes a distinction between...73%The frame problem motivates defeasible or non-monotonic reasoning appr...70%Specifying all non-effects of an action in a common-sense environment ...68%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-action
    View source passageHide passage
    As said above, the representation of actions and formalisms/logics to reason with them are very central to AI and particularly the field of KR. One of the main problems that one encounters in the literature on reasoning about actions in AI, and much more so than in mainstream computer science, is the discovery of the so-called frame problem (McCarthy and Hayes 1969). Although this problem has been generalized by philosophers such as Dennett (1984) to a general problem of relevance and salience o
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit