Re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

Discussion in 'Python' started by White Wolf, Sep 12, 2003.

  1. White Wolf

    White Wolf Guest

    Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for a new
    service provider.
    White Wolf, Sep 12, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
    > "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence
    >> is at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html --
    >> updated today.


    > [...] In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
    > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.


    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.

    > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
    > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
    > ports on a server. [...]


    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis explains
    that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary (enVocab) module
    to form an English lexical node for any new word detected
    by the Audition module in the stream of user input.

    > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
    > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
    > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
    > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
    > irrelevant. [...]


    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html#hardware (q.v.)
    explains that not "the size of some programmer's hardware" counts
    but rather the amount of memory available to the artificial Mind.

    The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and ambitious.
    Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other languages:

    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ with starter code;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/java.html -- see Mind.JAVA 1 and 2;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/lisp.html -- Lisp AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html -- first Perl module;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/prolog.html -- Prolog AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/python.html -- Python AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ruby.html -- Ruby AI Blog (OO AI);
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/scheme.html -- Scheme AI Weblog;
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see "Mind.VB #001" link.

    AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
    http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.

    The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
    and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.

    AI has been solved in theory and in primitive, free AI source code.
    Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate and proliferate.

    A.T. Murray
    --
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI Textbook;
    http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- review by Dr. Ben G.
    http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN Notices.
    Arthur T. Murray, Sep 12, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. White Wolf

    Guest Guest

    In comp.lang.java.programmer White Wolf <> wrote:
    > Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for a new
    > service provider.


    Seems on topic to every group posted to to me. Also an interesting
    project. But I guess you had to actually read his post to figure
    that out, Mr. Net-Cop.

    --arne
    Guest, Sep 12, 2003
    #3
  4. "Arthur T. Murray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
    > [...]
    > > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
    > > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.

    >
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.


    Brittle. Language-specific. Non-scalable. You are trying
    to build something "intelligent", aren't you?

    > > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
    > > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
    > > ports on a server. [...]

    >
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
    > explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
    > (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
    > new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
    > user input.


    Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is embarrassingly
    underspecified, the notion of indexing words is just silly. If
    a dictionary were a database, it might be a reasonable idea.
    But trying to simulate human speech with a database-like
    dictionary is the way of symbolic AI, and the combinatorial
    nature of language is going to rear its ugly head when you try
    to scale your system to realistic proportions. Hence, why
    programs like SHRDLU were good at their blocks worlds,
    but terrible at everything else. Again, a little history would
    do you well. If you want to refer to your text, let's take a
    quick look at something you wrote:

    6.4. Introduce aspects of massively parallel ("maspar")
    learning by letting many uniconceptual filaments on the
    mindgrid coalesce into conceptual minigrids that
    redundantly hold the same unitary concept as a massively
    parallel aggregate with massively parallel associative tags,
    so that the entire operation of the AI Mind is massively
    parallel in all aspects except such bottleneck factors as
    having only two eyes or two ears -- in the human tradition.

    Umm...pardon me, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.
    "uniconceptual filaments"? "comceptual minigrids"?
    "massively parallel aggregate"? Where is the glossary for
    your pig Latin? How on earth is a programmer supposed
    to build a computational model from this fluff? Read your
    mind? She certainly can't read your text. This sounds more
    like a motivational speech from a pointy-haired boss in a
    Dilbert strip than instructions for how to build an "AI Mind".
    I would parody it, but you've done a fine job yourself. Here's
    the real cheerleading right here:

    Then go beyond human frailties and human limitations
    by having any number ad libitum of local and remote
    sensory input devices and any number of local and
    remote robot embodiments and robotic motor
    opportunities. Inform the robot of human bondage in
    mortal bodies and of robot freedom in possibilities yet
    to be imagined.

    Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
    up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.

    > > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
    > > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
    > > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
    > > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
    > > irrelevant. [...]

    >
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html#hardware
    > (q.v.) explains that not "the size of some programmer's
    > hardware" counts but rather the amount of memory
    > available to the artificial Mind.


    The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
    have not given enough detail to build a working model. It's
    like me saying: "If you have a tokamak transverse reactor,
    then my spaceship plans will get you to Alpha Centauri in
    8 years, but if you only have a nuclear fission drive, then it
    will take 10. Oh and drop your carrots and onions in this
    big black kettle I have here." Also, the memory space of a
    single processor really isn't that important, since a serious
    project would be designed to operate over clusters or grids
    of processors. But I suppose it never occurred to you that
    you might want an AI brain that takes advantage of more
    than one processor, huh? I suppose you think the Sony
    "Emotion Engine" is what Lt. Cmdr. Data installed so he
    could feel human?

    > The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
    > ambitious.


    There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
    you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
    I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
    look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
    too much fibre for me to digest.

    > Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
    > languages:


    If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
    However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
    C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
    least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
    that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
    being (b)led by the blind.

    > [...]
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
    > "Mind.VB #001" link.


    This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
    even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
    already has a higher IQ than you.

    > AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
    > http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.


    Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
    and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
    cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
    you any day of the week.

    > The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
    > http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
    > and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.


    And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
    crossover, selection, and mutation?

    > AI has been solved in theory


    LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
    illegal, because it's obviously great stuff!

    > and in primitive, free AI source code.


    Here is an example of "primitive, free AI source code":

    10 PRINT "Hello, world!"

    See? It's got a speech generation and emotion engine
    built right in! And the AI is so reliable, it will never display
    a bad attitude, even if you tell it to grab you a cold one
    from the fridge. It always has a cheerful, positive
    demeanor. It is clearly self-aware, because it addresses
    others as being distinct from itself. And it has a theory of
    mind, because it knows that others expect a greeting when
    meeting for the first time. Unfortunately, it has no memory,
    so every meeting is for the first time. However, its output
    is entirely consistent, given this constraint. I guess I've
    just proved that "AI has been solved in theory"!

    > Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
    > and proliferate.


    I'm still waiting to see *your* mind germinate. I've watched
    grass grow faster. While ad homs are usually frowned
    upon, I don't see any harm when applied to someone who
    cannot be reasoned with anyway. Since you seem to have
    single-handedly "solved the AI problem", I'd like to ask
    you a few questions I (and I'm sure many others) have.

    1) How does consciousness work?
    2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees red
    that I do? How do we know?
    3) How are long-term memories formed?
    4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract
    reasoning?
    5) How does language work?
    6) How do emotions work?

    Please don't refer me to sections of your site. I've seen
    enough of your writing to know that the answers to my
    questions cannot be found there.

    Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
    misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
    alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
    the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
    claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human
    brains are collections of specialized problem solvers
    which must each be understood in considerable detail
    in order to produce anything remotely intelligent. You
    never gave a rebuttal, which tells me you don't have one.
    Why don't you do yourself a favor and start out by
    reading Society of Mind, by Minsky. After that, read
    any good neurobiology or neuroscience text to see just
    how "blank" your brain is when it starts out. Pinker
    has several good texts you should read. There's a
    reason why he's a professor at MIT, and you're a
    crackpot trying to con programmers into fulfilling your
    ridiculous fantasies.

    Dave
    David B. Held, Sep 13, 2003
    #4
  5. White Wolf

    White Wolf Guest

    wrote:
    > In comp.lang.java.programmer White Wolf <> wrote:
    >> Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for
    >> a new service provider.

    >
    > Seems on topic to every group posted to to me. Also an interesting
    > project. But I guess you had to actually read his post to figure
    > that out, Mr. Net-Cop.


    Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then look at
    the charter of this newsgroup:

    "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
    discussion
    of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
    ANSI/ISO
    language standard. "

    If all that is not enough the list of the newsgroups he cross-posted to
    should indicate that the topicality is questionable.

    This newsgroup (and I am afraid all languag newsgroups are such) is not
    created as a place for discussion of specific programming problems,
    especially not if the post is cross-posted to unrelated newsgroups.

    Discussion of specific C++ solutions would be topical, but not a genral
    discussion for several languages. For that comp.programming etc. should be
    used.

    --
    WW aka Attila
    White Wolf, Sep 13, 2003
    #5
  6. White Wolf

    Buster Guest

    "White Wolf" <> wrote

    > Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then look at
    > the charter of this newsgroup:
    >
    > "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
    > discussion
    > of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
    > ANSI/ISO
    > language standard. "


    Whoa, actually quoting the charter now. I didn't think you'd go that far.

    Regards, Buster
    Buster, Sep 13, 2003
    #6
  7. White Wolf

    White Wolf Guest

    Buster wrote:
    > "White Wolf" <> wrote
    >
    >> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then
    >> look at the charter of this newsgroup:
    >>
    >> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
    >> discussion
    >> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
    >> ANSI/ISO
    >> language standard. "

    >
    > Whoa, actually quoting the charter now. I didn't think you'd go that
    > far.


    I did not go anywhere. I was here, in this newsgroup. The topic went far.

    --
    WW aka Attila
    White Wolf, Sep 13, 2003
    #7
  8. White Wolf

    Steve Holden Guest

    "White Wolf" <> wrote in message
    news:bk07cm$hfs$...
    > Buster wrote:
    > > "White Wolf" <> wrote
    > >
    > >> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then
    > >> look at the charter of this newsgroup:
    > >>
    > >> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
    > >> discussion
    > >> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
    > >> ANSI/ISO
    > >> language standard. "

    > >
    > > Whoa, actually quoting the charter now. I didn't think you'd go that
    > > far.

    >
    > I did not go anywhere. I was here, in this newsgroup. The topic went

    far.
    >


    People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lazy attitude
    to editing the newsgroups these posting were sent to means that as a
    comp.lang.python reader I have toi listen you you bitching and moaning about
    what's appropriate in comp.lang.c++?

    By all means try to keep posters of that group to the charter, but DON'T
    subject others to your diatribes ;-)

    regards
    --
    Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
    Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/
    Steve Holden, Sep 14, 2003
    #8
  9. White Wolf

    White Wolf Guest

    Steve Holden wrote:
    > People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lazy
    > attitude to editing the newsgroups these posting were sent to means
    > that as a comp.lang.python reader I have toi listen you you bitching
    > and moaning about what's appropriate in comp.lang.c++?
    >
    > By all means try to keep posters of that group to the charter, but
    > DON'T subject others to your diatribes ;-)


    *PLONK*
    --
    WW aka Attila
    White Wolf, Sep 14, 2003
    #9
  10. White Wolf

    Steve Holden Guest

    "White Wolf" <> wrote in message
    news:bk23rr$7ei$...
    > Steve Holden wrote:
    > > People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lazy
    > > attitude to editing the newsgroups these posting were sent to means
    > > that as a comp.lang.python reader I have toi listen you you bitching
    > > and moaning about what's appropriate in comp.lang.c++?
    > >
    > > By all means try to keep posters of that group to the charter, but
    > > DON'T subject others to your diatribes ;-)

    >
    > *PLONK*



    Ooh, that *hurts*. Not.

    Well, now I won't annoy "White Wolf" (what a pretentious pseudonym, BTW),
    aka Atilla the Net-Cop, with this follow-up, can I say how sorry I am for
    the rest of comp.lang.c++ that you have to listen to that kind of rubbish.
    Fortunately, adults usually realise that these issues die down much more
    quickly when ignored.

    This is the only post that adding me to his kill-list will filter out as I'm
    not a habitual poster to c.l.c++, and don't intend to bore you any further
    :)

    Have a nice day.

    regards
    --
    Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
    Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/
    Steve Holden, Sep 14, 2003
    #10
  11. "David B. Held" wrote on Sat, 13 Sep 2003:
    >> > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
    >> > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.

    ATM:
    >> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.

    DBH:
    > Brittle.

    ATM:
    You are right. It is precariously brittle. That brittleness
    is part of the "Grand Challenge" of building a viable AI Mind.
    First we have to build a brittle one, then we must trust the
    smarter-than-we-are crowd to incorporate fault-tolerance.
    DBH:
    > Language-specific.

    ATM:
    Do you mean "human-language-specific" or "programming-language"?
    With programming-language variables, we have to start somewhere,
    and then we let adventitious AI coders change the beginnings.
    With variables that lend themselves to polyglot human languages,
    we achieve two aims: AI coders in non-English-speaking lands
    will feel encouraged to code an AI speaking their own language;
    and AI Minds will be engendered that speak polyglot languages.
    Obiter dictu -- the Mentifex "Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind" --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html -- features
    a plausible explanation of how to implant multiple Chomskyan
    syntaxes and multiple lexicons within one unitary AI Mind.
    The AI textbook AI4U page 35 on the English language module --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/english.html -- and
    the AI textbook AI4U page 77 on the Reify module --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/reify.html -- and the
    AI textbook AI4U page 93 on the English bootstrap module --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html -- all show
    unique and original diagrams of an AI Mind that contains
    the thinking apparatus for multiple human languages --
    in other words, an AI capapble of Machine Translation (MT).

    DBH:
    > Non-scalable.

    ATM:
    Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we attain
    critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then we scale up.

    DBH:
    > You are trying to build something "intelligent", aren't you?

    ATM:
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html -- Machine...
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- Intelligence.

    DBH:
    > > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
    > > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
    > > ports on a server. [...]

    ATM:
    > http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
    > explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
    > (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
    > new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
    > user input.


    DBH:
    Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is embarrassingly
    underspecified, the notion of indexing words is just silly.
    ATM:
    Nevertheless, here at the dawn of AI (flames? "Bring 'em on.")
    we need to simulate conceptual gangs of redundant nerve fibers,
    and so we resort to numeric indexing just to start somewhere.

    DBH:
    > If a dictionary were a database, it might be a reasonable idea.
    > But trying to simulate human speech with a database-like
    > dictionary is the way of symbolic AI, and the combinatorial
    > nature of language is going to rear its ugly head when you try
    > to scale your system to realistic proportions. Hence, why
    > programs like SHRDLU were good at their blocks worlds,


    http://www.semaphorecorp.com/misc/shrdlu.html -- by T. Winograd?

    > but terrible at everything else. Again, a little history would
    > do you well. If you want to refer to your text, let's take a
    > quick look at something you wrote:


    6.4. Introduce aspects of massively parallel ("maspar")
    learning by letting many uniconceptual filaments on the
    mindgrid coalesce into conceptual minigrids that
    redundantly hold the same unitary concept as a massively
    parallel aggregate with massively parallel associative tags,
    so that the entire operation of the AI Mind is massively
    parallel in all aspects except such bottleneck factors as
    having only two eyes or two ears -- in the human tradition.

    > Umm...pardon me, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.
    > "uniconceptual filaments"?

    ATM:
    Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.

    > "conceptual minigrids"?

    ATM:
    Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or minigrid
    distributed across the entire mindgrid, for massive redundancy --
    which affords security or longevity of concepts, and which
    also aids in massively parallel processing (MPP).

    > "massively parallel aggregate"?
    > Where is the glossary for your pig Latin?
    > How on earth is a programmer supposed to build a
    > computational model from this fluff? Read your mind?
    > She certainly can't read your text. This sounds more
    > like a motivational speech from a pointy-haired boss in a
    > Dilbert strip than instructions for how to build an "AI Mind".
    > I would parody it, but you've done a fine job yourself.


    Ha! You're funny there! <grin>

    > Here's the real cheerleading right here:


    Then go beyond human frailties and human limitations
    by having any number ad libitum of local and remote
    sensory input devices and any number of local and
    remote robot embodiments and robotic motor
    opportunities. Inform the robot of human bondage in
    mortal bodies and of robot freedom in possibilities yet
    to be imagined.

    > Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
    > up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.


    >> > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
    >> > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
    >> > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
    >> > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
    >> > irrelevant. [...]

    >>
    >> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html#hardware
    >> (q.v.) explains that not "the size of some programmer's
    >> hardware" counts but rather the amount of memory
    >> available to the artificial Mind.


    > The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
    > have not given enough detail to build a working model.

    ATM:
    If the AI coder has an opportunity to go beyond 32-bit and
    use a 64-bit machine, then he/she/it ought to do it, because
    once we arrive at 64-bits (for RAM), we may stop a while.

    > It's like me saying: "If you have a tokamak transverse reactor,
    > then my spaceship plans will get you to Alpha Centauri in
    > 8 years, but if you only have a nuclear fission drive, then it
    > will take 10. Oh and drop your carrots and onions in this
    > big black kettle I have here." Also, the memory space of a
    > single processor really isn't that important, since a serious
    > project would be designed to operate over clusters or grids
    > of processors. But I suppose it never occurred to you that
    > you might want an AI brain that takes advantage of more
    > than one processor, huh?

    ATM:
    The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis) may
    preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."

    > I suppose you think the Sony
    > "Emotion Engine" is what Lt. Cmdr. Data installed so he
    > could feel human?


    >> The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
    >> ambitious.


    > There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
    > you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
    > I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
    > look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
    > too much fibre for me to digest.


    >> Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
    >> languages:


    > If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
    > However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
    > C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
    > least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
    > that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
    > being (b)led by the blind.


    >> [...]
    >> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
    >> "Mind.VB #001" link.


    > This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
    > even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
    > already has a higher IQ than you.


    >> AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
    >> http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.


    > Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
    > and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
    > cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
    > you any day of the week.


    >> The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
    >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
    >> and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.


    > And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
    > crossover, selection, and mutation?

    ATM:
    http://www.seedai.e-mind.org tries to track each new species
    of AI Mind. We do _not_ want standard Minds; we only wish
    to have some standards in how we go about coding AI Minds.

    >> AI has been solved in theory


    > LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
    > illegal, because it's obviously great stuff!


    > > and in primitive, free AI source code.


    > Here is an example of "primitive, free AI source code":


    > 10 PRINT "Hello, world!"


    > See? It's got a speech generation and emotion engine
    > built right in! And the AI is so reliable, it will never display
    > a bad attitude, even if you tell it to grab you a cold one
    > from the fridge. It always has a cheerful, positive
    > demeanor. It is clearly self-aware, because it addresses
    > others as being distinct from itself. And it has a theory of
    > mind, because it knows that others expect a greeting when
    > meeting for the first time. Unfortunately, it has no memory,
    > so every meeting is for the first time. However, its output
    > is entirely consistent, given this constraint. I guess I've
    > just proved that "AI has been solved in theory"!


    >> Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
    >> and proliferate.


    > I'm still waiting to see *your* mind germinate. I've watched
    > grass grow faster. While ad homs are usually frowned
    > upon, I don't see any harm when applied to someone who
    > cannot be reasoned with anyway. Since you seem to have
    > single-handedly "solved the AI problem", I'd like to ask
    > you a few questions I (and I'm sure many others) have.


    > 1) How does consciousness work?

    ATM:
    Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is fooled
    into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_ conscious.

    > 2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees red
    > that I do? How do we know?


    ATM:
    You've got me there. Qualia totally non-plus me :(

    > 3) How are long-term memories formed?


    ATM:
    Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes* LTM.

    > 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract reasoning?


    ATM:
    Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain funding.
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - $send____.

    > 5) How does language work?


    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI4U.

    > 6) How do emotions work?


    ATM:
    By the influence of physiological "storms" upon ratiocination.

    > Please don't refer me to sections of your site. I've seen
    > enough of your writing to know that the answers to my
    > questions cannot be found there.


    > Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
    > misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
    > alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
    > the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
    > claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human


    IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.

    > brains are collections of specialized problem solvers
    > which must each be understood in considerable detail
    > in order to produce anything remotely intelligent. You
    > never gave a rebuttal, which tells me you don't have one.
    > Why don't you do yourself a favor and start out by
    > reading Society of Mind, by Minsky. After that, read
    > any good neurobiology or neuroscience text to see just
    > how "blank" your brain is when it starts out. Pinker
    > has several good texts you should read. There's a
    > reason why he's a professor at MIT, and you're a
    > crackpot trying to con programmers into fulfilling your
    > ridiculous fantasies.


    > Dave


    Arthur
    --
    http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/python.html -- Python AI Weblog
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
    http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
    http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth
    Arthur T. Murray, Sep 15, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. White Wolf
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    395
    Terry Reedy
    Sep 15, 2003
  2. Arthur T. Murray

    Standards in Artificial Intelligence

    Arthur T. Murray, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    76
    Views:
    1,655
    Rotes Sapiens
    Oct 4, 2003
  3. tommak
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    423
    Kenneth P. Turvey
    Jul 4, 2006
  4. tommak
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    323
    Terry Hancock
    Jul 4, 2006
  5. tommak
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    361
    tommak
    Jul 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page