1) Yes, human knowledge base is limited.
2) Children's knowledge is limited even more.
That's why our children's intelligence is essentially weaker than adults' intelligence.
3) ARTCOM's knowledge would be EXTREMELY limited (because of very poor communication channel).
That's why ARTCOM's general intelligence would be EXTREMELY weak.
4) If you suggest to use new language for communication with ARTCOM then it's not user friendly already.
What is more important: knowledge base on the internet is practically not available for ARTCOME.
5) Yes, ability to understand available data is critical.
That's exactly the direction to dig in the General AI research.
And this is directly relates to natural language reading problem.
6) You can measure my intelligence even if I have no external tools. I still have knowledge database in my head.
What is important here: my intelligence with external tools (Google/Internet/Other experts/...) would be essentially higher than my intelligence without external tools.
BTW, John Searle did big mistake in his Chinese Room Argument.
Student with dictionary is different system than student without dictionary.
No wonder that "student with dictionary system" can speak Chinese, but "student without dictionary system" cannot.
Intelligence level of these two systems also differs.
7) Difference between "human search" and "intelligent calculator" is huge:
Humans already have huge knowledge base of possible solutions. Current problem activates the most relevant solution in the knowledge base.
Then human tries to apply these most relevant solutions and check the results. Solution which brings the best result is selected.
(The quality of the result is evaluated against human's goals).
In addition --- this selected solution, relevant information, and relations between problem and solution are added to the knowledge base for future use.
"Intelligent calculator" behaves in different way. Calculator doesn't use knowledge base, because it doesn't have solutions knowledge base.
Calculator doesn't have the ways to find the solution in the knowledge database either.
Calculator just applies some calculations to input data and returns the result.
You are building calculator.
Yes, you are going to implement small database based on past experience with user stories.
But the key to efficient general intelligence is HUGE database, not small one.
8) If you cover essential amount of concepts and relations between concepts that you will quickly get big database.
Why do you think it would be small?
It would be small only if your input channel is inefficient (like special language which wasn't used before).
9) Little data in knowledge base is absolutely not enough for general intelligence!
It could be little data in the question, but knowledge base has to be HUGE.
10) Since your system with small knowledge base would be inefficient --- nobody would put data in your database. Therefore the project would die.
11) Contrary to General Intelligence, HTML prototype perfectly works with one page. That's why some people learned HTML.
But even in case of HTML it took years before HTML became popular.
12) Your special language has other disadvantages aside of "nobody use it" problem.
It is less efficient than natural languages in supporting "General Intelligence Thought Process" and "General Topic Conversations".
13) If my long term memory doesn't accept any new knowledge then:
I still will be able to apply solutions from my huge database to new problems which are similar to old problems.
But this would be possible only because I already have HUGE knowledge base.
Worst part in "read-only memory" is that deliberation would be impossible.
Adapting to the changes in the world would be impossible.
Improving solution solving skills would be impossible.
Too many problems. Even with HUGE knowledge base.
Without HUGE knowledge base already in place there would be practically no intelligence.
14) If you want to keep things as simple as possible --- don't invent your own language. This is not just useless it's harmful for the system.
15) I hope I saved your research/development time