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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The frame problem makes complete action specification virtually impossible in common-sense AI settings

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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