Standards in Artificial Intelligence

Arthur T. Murray uj797 at
Mon Sep 15 16:08:08 CEST 2003

"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.
>> -- yes.
> Brittle.  
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.
> Language-specific.
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" -- -- 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 -- -- and 
the AI textbook AI4U page 77 on the Reify module -- -- and the
AI textbook AI4U page 93 on the English bootstrap module -- -- 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).

> Non-scalable.  
Once again, we have to start somewhere.  Once we attain 
critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then we scale up.

> You are trying to build something "intelligent", aren't you?
ATM: -- Machine... -- Intelligence.

> > 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. [...]
> 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.
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.

> 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, -- 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"? 
Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.

> "conceptual minigrids"?
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. [...]
>> (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.
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?
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.

>> [...]
>> -- 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
>> -- etc.

> Oh, I 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
>> -- 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: 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?
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?

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

> 3) How are long-term memories formed?

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

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

Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain funding. - $send____.

> 5) How does language work? -- AI4U.

> 6) How do emotions work?

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

-- -- Python AI Weblog - Mind-eXchange; -- Goertzel on Mentifex; -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth

More information about the Python-list mailing list