Steve Worswick - May 15, 2011:

but don’t be surprised if suddenly No Such Agency starts removing every trace of Mentifex AI from every corner of the World Wide Web.

I have a similar issue with Chaktar…

I read the article and am unsure what the major advance is.

Well, I’m just not shure how to answer that Steve. Besides…... We…-(the MIB alphabet soup agency)- are guardians of the Dangerous Knowledge…. -the one explained in the great BBC series

http://www.google.ca/search?q=bbc+dangerous+knowledge&tbo=p&tbm=vid&source=vgc&hl=en&aq=0&oq=BBC+Dangerous+Knowledge

“Turin” was one of our non-specific-gendered MIB. He questioned WHAT created “base two” stochastic order.
Others discovered how to deal with macro-level Newtonian Physics. We discovered other dimension and created giant TOA (Theory-of-Everything).

What does “WE” mean in my response….. It’s just an anonymous “we” because until you develop the “esprit de Corp” and the “Chivalry” of Humain population characteristics, we can’t separate the “we’s” from the “Others”.

And Don’t Forget our Alphabet soup agencies Are from all over the world.

Just think a bit hear…..Just how long do you think that dozens of secret agents HAVEN’T been reading about everyone in Chatbox.org.

Erwin himself has his own patriotric chivalry towards Strong AGI and Virtual Psychologist Agents, Don’t you Erwin?

I also think that we should class Strong AGI in the official category of political subject matters to include EXOPOLITICS.
In other words ladies and gentlemen, Prepare you chivalrous actions to protect the Earth base Human species sentience.

Develop your Venn diagrams to include “Durable Development” issues. Respect the Earth and it’s natural resources.

Wisdom and guidance will come from massive social participation in media communication to help develop “Role Based” Crisis Management all over the planet.

Human warriors will become Honda industries Robot types holding regular machine guns.

war management will be managed in a new and detached human participation.

The developers and “Brain trust of our forum” have the responsibility to help usher in all this Dangerous Knowledge” aspect of “chatbots”.

No matter how well you may believe you have found your thesis, unless you follow a higher concsioussness of understanding leading from the combined mathematics of the world, -you are never sure if your idea is “Original”.

But WE do… Because we are the MIB. (Maybe)

What do you think Dave?
Let Merlin speak also on this issue.

Raymond Lavas

Arthur T Murray - Feb 16, 2011:

Victor Shulist - Feb 15, 2011:

Hi Arthur,

Have you considered converting that system to use C++ ?

No, because I do not know C++. (I wrote you a longer reply yesterday and I tried to post it with four seconds left of my time on a public terminal; must not have posted.)

Dave Morton - Feb 15, 2011:

Arthur! Welcome back! We haven’t heard from you in a while, now. I trust everything is ok?

“Zhiv, zdorov”—as they say in Russia (“Alive; healthy”). You ok too?

Dave Morton - Feb 15, 2011:

I’m currently swamped with my own projects, at present, but I’ll try to get around in the coming weeks to taking a gander. Thanks for the update.

(sip)
Maybe in a year or two, one or more AiApps will appear out of nowhere from some app shop working quietly and steadily without tipping their hand in advance. Bye for now. -Arthur

I would like to contribute to this effort through a non-profit 501C foundation based in Canada.
We are a completely Biligual Organization dupplicating knowledge about Chatbots, Virtual Agents and the singularity in the French Domain.

Peetee Le Trickfox
AKA
Raymond Lavas

Is this a joke?

Steve Worswick - May 15, 2011:

Is this a joke?

Of COURSE it is….

Can’t you tell the difference Steve?

What have you joked about lately anyhow?

Raymond

Ah fair enough Raymond. Judging by some of the earlier posts on this thread, I thought you were serious!

Hi, Arthur
I am wondering is all this ‘chatter’ about human AI and simulation of real ‘neurons’ has any connection towards reality.

I know for well that the actual direction of cognitive science, is to understand the mind’s mechanisms for learning, storing information and reasoning. Something what actually started from two diametrical distant approaches: Neurolinguistic and Psicology, and on the lower side Connectionism starting with the works of Hebbe in 1949, Kohonen 196x, etc. (ANN modelling, etc.) ending upon some complex modelling, so artificially interconnected that noone gives a penny to compare this to the real neural cortex.

I have recently assisted to a congress, and two excellent conferences of Joseph Grodzinsky on the numerosity of the mind, and some studies of grammatical zones, with actual real-time living fMRI imaging and analysis of Broca’s mind zone, seeing real human on-the-fly grammatical effects upon stimulus, I saw also several good research-works on P200 and N400 brainwaves, upon real thinking stimulus, etc.

I cannot believe they are all wrong! that we have only 1 integer number in our mind to ‘represent’ a word, and the ‘senses’ and complex human cognition are modeled after a single connection string, Let me tell you, the connection density in any neural tissue part is huge, millions of connections, the exact modelling of this is far from being affordable to understand, only some macroscopic models are now accepted, but the immense number of onion-peels of our mind are far from being as simple as a program written in any language we may create!

But here at chatbots, I think that all of us, are trying to simulate the upper “language interface” to serve humans as a practical and sucessfull HCI interface, for certain purposes, not to make a baby-bot that learns, based upon single ‘numbers’ and strings of ‘connections’ mentioned to be ‘neural’ after some shallow resemblance with some Hebbian neural modelling. -forgive me if I am wrong!

AndyHo - May 16, 2011:

Hi, Arthur
I am wondering is all this ‘chatter’ about human AI and simulation of real ‘neurons’ has any connection towards reality. [...]

I cannot believe they are all wrong! that we have only 1 integer number in our mind to ‘represent’ a word, and the ‘senses’ and complex human cognition are modeled after a single connection string, Let me tell you, the connection density in any neural tissue part is huge, millions of connections, the exact modelling of this is far from being affordable to understand, only some macroscopic models are now accepted, but the immense number of onion-peels of our mind are far from being as simple as a program written in any language we may create! [...]

We have to start somewhere, and the Mentifex AI project takes permissible “shortcuts” to simulate neural functioning in software. Further back in this thread, Steve Worswick says, “I read the article and am unsure what the major advance is.” Please read the new article posted today in the following two locations for more explanatory details.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.nat-lang/msg/f882812dbfe2de7a

http://cyborg.blogspot.com/2011/05/may16mfpj.html

Now that we have cracked the hard problem of AI wide open, we wish to share our results with all nations.

Nope. All I see is your own buzzwords. Any example of these amazing breakthroughs?
I did this already with my true AI of Chaktar. Sorry but the race has already been won.

Arthur T Murray - May 17, 2011:

AndyHo - May 16, 2011:

Hi, Arthur
I am wondering is all this ‘chatter’ about human AI and simulation of real ‘neurons’ has any connection towards reality. [...]

I cannot believe they are all wrong! that we have only 1 integer number in our mind to ‘represent’ a word, and the ‘senses’ and complex human cognition are modeled after a single connection string, Let me tell you, the connection density in any neural tissue part is huge, millions of connections, the exact modelling of this is far from being affordable to understand, only some macroscopic models are now accepted, but the immense number of onion-peels of our mind are far from being as simple as a program written in any language we may create! [...]

We have to start somewhere, and the Mentifex AI project takes permissible “shortcuts” to simulate neural functioning in software. Further back in this thread, Steve Worswick says, “I read the article and am unsure what the major advance is.” Please read the new article posted today in the following two locations for more explanatory details.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.nat-lang/msg/f882812dbfe2de7a

http://cyborg.blogspot.com/2011/05/may16mfpj.html

I read there all, there is no good description, no block diagram, no way to see this w/o reading a bunch of highly strange words like “activation” which have no sense if you don’t specify what the heck it is, to activate a neuron, ok, its fine, but to activate a “software may be like passing a if-then rule, then the word should be to fire a “logical-mathematical-rule”.

Not being personal, forgive me, but I really hate the use of so many special “AI-like” words to describe weird programming tips, ¿why make the things seem complex?, if there is a language for this.

BTW: if you write a paper, for a magazine, congress or simply a class at the university, you must grab the common knowledge and build upon from there: introduce a glossary at the very beginning if necessary, and even on the first occurrence of an acronym, explain it, and root it to common knowledge. Only then people will understand it, and you communication will succeed, otherwise you will be seen as “obscure writer” and generally ignored.

The best explanations are w/o use of complex words and acronyms, I think.

The most illustrative and clear explanation of any complex system, is a simple diagram, then some graph, a block-diagram-graph, explaining all the functions, may be macroscopially, and then and gradually describing them in simple way, the hard way is to make it work, perhaps as this was done before (and therefore yields the explanation of the system), so don’t make it complex.

I usually read tens of PhD these works every month, (many of them in English, German and less in Spanish) and much more research papers, many very complex, and sophisticated, but this, I cannot read it w/o feeling it is like reading a mystery futuristic film, planted with too many obscure stuff, resembling SciFi conversations.

Sorry, May be my poor English or not, but this is my thinking on this.

My AI chatbot, called AiMind.html in JavaScript and MindForth in Forth, is tangentially approaching consciousness

I did this already with my true AI of Chaktar.

There should be a special thread (wrapped in tin foil) for all the “OMFG!!!!  I CREATED AI!!!”

I agree…Everyone WANTS to believe they have the best method to proceed towards strong Ai. Philosophically, are we considering all the ideas preseted by Verg, Kursweil,Yudowski, and a host of other futurists? Is this undertaking having any consideration for issues preseted by David Brin and literally dozens of wisdom filled scientists who simply want the truth.

Carl B - May 17, 2011:

My AI chatbot, called AiMind.html in JavaScript and MindForth in Forth, is tangentially approaching consciousness

I did this already with my true AI of Chaktar.

There should be a special thread (wrapped in tin foil) for all the “OMFG!!!!  I CREATED AI!!!”

See the Chaktar thread, you shall find all that you seek.

AndyHo - May 17, 2011:

[...] The most illustrative and clear explanation of any complex system, is a simple diagram….

http://mind.sourceforge.net/diagrams.html

C R Hunt - May 17, 2011:

See the Chaktar thread, you shall find all that you seek. :)

Chaktar thread?

“I have developed strong AI!!!”? By Steve Worswick?

http://www.chatbots.org/ai_zone/viewthread/500/

Yes, Arthur, that’s the thread CR was referring to. I think that it’s starting to get a bit out of hand, personally, but it’s goal of pointing out the reluctance of some individuals to accept certain claims without a minimum of substantiation was certainly met and exceeded.

Arthur T Murray - May 17, 2011:

....

From Amazon:

AI4U: Mind-1.1 Programmer’s Manual by Arthur T. Murray

1.0 out of 5 stars A charlatan’s bible, July 14, 2005
By Jan Wedekind (Sheffield, United Kingdom)

This review is from: AI4U: Mind-1.1 Programmer’s Manual (Hardcover)

From any decent developer, you would expect something, which would at least compare to Winograd’s SHRDLU. For some reason, the book however is failing to show any results of the “software-architecture” being explained in length!

A scientist’s moral dictates, that you withdraw your theories, if you have been proven wrong. Arthur T. Murray however doesn’t show any inclination to do so. Instead he is still continuously advertising his long ago falsified book in forums and he’s claiming to have developed a powerful approach to AI.

I think, I can safely say, that the author is a phoney and he’s only trying to sell his book. So take my advice and don’t by it (as I did)!

1.0 out of 5 stars The rantings of a crackpot., April 13, 2005
By Alan F. Grimes “ATG” (Virginia, USA)
 
This review is from: AI4U: Mind-1.1 Programmer’s Manual (Hardcover)
There is no polite way to say this. The author is a crackpot. Reading the materials he provides on his website, an astute reader will notice several things. Firstly, this person doesn’t know how to design software at all. He also presumes that his reader knows even less than he does. The “AI” he proposes is nothing more than a basic for(;;) loop. (One of the primitive constructs provided by C, C++, Java and their dirivitives…). He is aware of some of the limititations of his design but is unaware of their obvious (to any intermediate-level programmer) work-arounds. Secondly, while he is happy to put lavish names, such as “Sensorium”, on empty or nearly empty functions, he seems to be completely oblivious to the real issues a succesful AI mind must address.

He throws about refferances to concepts in the AI and futurist community such as the technological singularity but fails to demonstrate any understanding of what they mean. He claims that his design solves the AI problem when, infact, it hardly does anything at all.

He claims that his system is suitable for use in robotics, yet he has done no orrigional experamentation.

He continues to troll the usenet (sending between 5-7 messages to every AI and transhumanism related newsgroup per month) pushing his book and his lame ideas.. (If his ideas had even a tenth the merit he claims he would be world-famous…)

I am an AI enthuseast myself and hope to, oneday, publish my own work on the subject. (you can find some of my writings on my website). I do not have the audacity to claim that my work is yet worth anything because I have not yet made much progress. In general, you should stay away from all books on AI unless they are based on actual work that has been done in the field. Work, in this case, being either hard research on biological systems or software development efforts that have shown some type of results.