A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence

  • 52 Replies
  • 20312 Views
*

Christopher Doyon

  • Bumblebee
  • **
  • 43
  • GRAND BOTMASTER
    • MLAI  Foundation
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2006, 06:12:36 am »
My Friends --

"This is the thing I fear..."

The fact that the word "fear" has entered your debate reply should give us pause for thought. Much of the intensely negative, almost vitriolic - reaction to the works and thoughts of Turing, Von Neumann, Hertz, Wagman, and Wallace (upon which my Theory is soundly based) - is I believe driven by fear. Fear that if Life and Intelligence really are that easy and simple, then we will somehow be overtaken by our own creations - or otherwise so devalue the "meaning" of Life and Intelligence as to degrade ourselves somehow.

"It is  failure and retreat - because you cannot make what you want, you accept what you can  make."

And yet I HAVE and continue to make what I want. And I do so in defiance of that statement and using my Theory as my primary approach. My success, and the success of the many, many others who subscribe to the general principles my Theory elucidates and codifies are producing amazing and wonderful things, more and more so everyday.

"It has the unintended consequence of devaluing real life and intelligence, both symbolically and if accepted widely enough, actually."

That smacks of religion, or at the least metaphysics. Biological prejudice, chemical life is "real" and has more meaning than does it's lesser mechanical life. This is a direction that humanity has followed with dire consequences for the race already.

"I am fearsomely and wonderfully made."

Sounds almost biblical. Please don't be insulted but I believe you to be a big, mushy, smelly sack of bio-chemicals. However, your BEHAVIOR - i.e. your output, now THAT is both fearsome and wonderful. I do not however see anything particularly interesting or awe inspiring in HOW you were made. My respect, which is total and complete - is based solely on your output.

"It saddens me to think that others can contemplate themselves (as the only sample they really have) and only see a shadow or a reflex. It seems a symptom of self-loathing rather than of self-respect."

I see myself exactly as I just described. As a big, mushy, and smelly sack of bio-chemicals. I am un-impressed with how I am made in comparison to the way any other thing or being is constructed. The fractal pattern on a computer screen which is generated by the Mandelbrot Set is at least as worthy of aesthetic respect. Do I now also have to be beautiful to be alive and intelligent ?  And far from self-loathing, I respect and admire my OWN output at least as much as I do your own. But it is my thoughts manifest in that output that are awesome and beautiful and fearsome, not the blob of jelly creating them.

So far you seem to be resorting to irrational fear, religion/meta-physics, and now aesthetics. None of which bear on the strictly scientific nature of the present enquiry.

"She's only a tool, Bless her little heart."

Yeah, I love my "tools" too. Goodnight Allison, goodnight Quark - Good night BotMaster !


VERY AFFECTIONATELY YOURS -- Chris      :smiley
MLAI  Foundation

www.MLAIFoundation.info

*

Bill DeWitt

  • Guest
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2006, 02:15:19 pm »
My Friends --

"This is the thing I fear..."

The fact that the word "fear" has entered your debate reply should give us pause for thought.
If only it did. Instead it seems to have given you an excuse to parade your own prejudices out and apply them to me. You speak of violence and vitriol as if you were a martyr when to my eyes you have been treated with respect far beyond what you would receive in a setting where sophomorism is rejected out of hand.

Quote
So far you seem to be resorting to irrational fear, religion/meta-physics, and now aesthetics. None of which bear on the strictly scientific nature of the present enquiry.
So far I have done much more than that and you have neither supported your contentions with data nor argued your point with logic (other than a self-satisfied circular logic).

For the record, my use of the word "fear" was meant in the sense of "suspect" as previous posts will verify. For instance, "I fear you have soiled your pants" doesn't mean I am scared of poop.

Now, in the phrase "Fearsomely and wonderfully made" I am using it in the the sense of heartquickening awe. But the point here is in the word "made" which you consider religious (while ignoring your own religion). I am talking about the construct of my mind, not the biological goop which you seem to both worship and revile. In another post which you bypassed, I assert that it does not matter what life and intelligence, if it can exist, will consist of. Again, you apply your prejudice to someone else to me.

I will address your SODE today, at least the first section on life. And I will do it as I did your preamble, point by point and dispassionately. I hope your reply will not be to accuse me of irrationality again. I have an affection for your project but I can easily turn my attention elsewhere if you think my contributions are comprised of fear and esthetics.

Or can it be that you must denigrate my intellect to avoid the required repair of your effort? Or perhaps because this whole thing is about a search for "contributions" via paypal?

You ask me not to be offended by being called a bag of chemicals, no problem. I await an apology for being called a fearful, irrational, religion-blinded, violent and vitriolic ignoramus who succumbs to the Frankenstine paranoia and responds with dire consequences for the race.

"Metaphysical"? ... OK, I own that one. But until you present mechanical life that passes the simplests of tests (which you have not  done), so are you.

*

Art

  • At the end of the game, the King and Pawn go into the same box.
  • Trusty Member
  • **********************
  • Colossus
  • *
  • 5864
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2006, 05:55:27 pm »
Theories are just that...ideas, postulations, speculation that is or has yet to be proved.

You can be proud as an individual, of your own theories and attempts to create that
which you have created (in the circular scheme of things), whether or not it is readily
accepted by the masses.

I've heard all the claims that this new program is the greatest or "I have developed the
best learning bot" and neural net and cylconic abstraction of medula oblongata has
produced a dynamic program...yada...yada...and etc.. I've heard them all over the past
25 years or so. Don't tell me that a chess program is smart...we know better.

There is no one end all or do all program in the field of AI and while we all search to find
that one program that seems to embody that for which we seek, we (the individual) are
often disappointed when it doesn't meet or exceed our expectations.

We are, after all, dealing with a relatively new (in terms of years) field called AI. Artificial
Intelligence is just that...Artificial! It is NOT real, nor will it ever be real. It may, at some
point in the future exhibit human-like behavior but personally, I doubt if any program or
android will ever become self aware when compared to humans or what we perceive to
be an actual state of awareness.

They will simply be acting upon a set of instructions, triggering a set of relays, switches
or solenoids which in turn, will cause another action or reaction. The culmination of the
hardware, software, sensors, etc., may provide a realistic illusion long enough for we
humans to suspend our disbelief and be entertained. Embracing such beings like the robot
in iRobot or the little boy in AI as a real being, at this point in our technological evolution
is merely Hollywood smoke and mirrors (not to mention great computer graphics).

I have had similar discussions with KnyteTrypper over various types and preferences of
bots (chatbots) to which we agreed to disagree as to which ones were superior to others.
He likes the Alice "scripted" bots where I prefer the ones that "learn". By "learn", I mean that
they can form new sentences and "thoughts" on their own based on certain criteria and do
not require scripting by a host or botmaster. I also do not care for online only bots since
I do not frequent chat rooms. But I also respect KT for his beliefs and have been impressed
with his dedication to that in which he believes. He's a good egg!! :afro

One problem is that no matter how the bots are structured and how vast one's theories might
seem, the program still has no idea what RED, GLASS, TOY, SEX, BIRD, SIGHT, EMOTION, etc.,
actually means. It is a pattern matching program that only searches for and picks word that
fit a predifined criteria. The computer can tell you the definition of a word, but it does not have
the capacity (or gray matter) to know what that word really means.

If the field of AI had kept pace with the advancement of the CPU over the past 25 years, perhaps
we'd have an AI similar to the Hal 9000 or at least Robbie but again, that's Hollywood.

Huge amounts of data, volumes of information, fed into a computer still doesn't make it any more
intelligent, it just provides it more words with which to match during it's pattern searches.

While it is a fun hobby for me, exploring and testing new programs of this nature, I am also a realist
and know for machine intelligence to approach that of humans is just a golden ring slightly out of
reach for the one on the ride.

Tickets please --- :police
In the world of AI, it's the thought that counts!

*

Christopher Doyon

  • Bumblebee
  • **
  • 43
  • GRAND BOTMASTER
    • MLAI  Foundation
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2006, 08:21:18 pm »
Hello All --

Okay. Far from denigrating your intellect Bill, I did nothing but praise it in my last post - which was a coldly logical and VERY CAREFULLY un-personal reply to your own. And I was clearly refering to Turing, Von Neumann, Hertz, Wagman and Wallace as the martrys and NOT myself. You appear to be angry that I will not bend to your idea, and if I offended I apologize. I do not however concede any of the points, either above or below this post. I will let my last post above stand as my summation of the debate between myself and Bill, which I believe has run it's due course.

With that, I retire the field.


AGAIN, VERY AFFECTIONATELY YOURS -- Chris     :cool
MLAI  Foundation

www.MLAIFoundation.info

*

Christopher Doyon

  • Bumblebee
  • **
  • 43
  • GRAND BOTMASTER
    • MLAI  Foundation
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2006, 08:30:20 pm »
Dear Bill --

By spreading your challenges to my Elements all over the forum like that, you have made it to difficult for me to reply. I simply do not have the time to track that many threads. Your challenges are noted. For the record I do not concede any point in Bill's many other posts regarding my work. I am simply un-able to debate in the fashion in which his challenge is presented.


YOURS -- Christopher Doyon    :tickedoff
MLAI  Foundation

www.MLAIFoundation.info

*

Bill DeWitt

  • Guest
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2006, 09:10:57 pm »
I am simply un-able to debate in the fashion in which his challenge is presented.

What? As in, "with facts and logic?"

OK - if you say so.

But for the person interested in development of AI, I will be posting my analysis of his test for Artificial Intelligence in six parts also. When I am done I will submit my Consciousness construct for any level of criticism including personal attacks about my religion, fears and vitriol.

*

Christopher Doyon

  • Bumblebee
  • **
  • 43
  • GRAND BOTMASTER
    • MLAI  Foundation
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2006, 09:33:12 pm »
Dear Bill --

"What? As in, "with facts and logic?""

No, as I clearly stated - as in ten gazillion threads that I do not have the time to monitor. I believe I have acquitted myself both honorably and well in the fact and logic department already.

"OK - if you say so."

Nothing personal, it's just to many threads. I can really only do this one right now. I am spending 12 hours a day defending my piece in 15 of the worlds MLAI forums. The manner in which the challenge is presented is technically un-feasible for me right now.

"When I am done I will submit my Consciousness construct for any level of criticism including personal attacks about my religion, fears and vitriol."

No offense was intended. But certainly criticism of resorting to those in a scientific debate was meant.


YOURS -- Christopher Doyon    :angry
MLAI  Foundation

www.MLAIFoundation.info

*

Bill DeWitt

  • Guest
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2006, 10:03:55 pm »
The manner in which the challenge is presented is technically un-feasible for me right now.
Of course . . .

For the spectator, this is why society creates the noise filters I spoke of last week. 

When burned out hippies come around telling NASA scientists why the Mars Rover could be made for $200, but then won't present data, they get shot down rather easily, resort to personal attacks, then complain about the tone of the debate before storming out of the room.

I can't tell you how many times I saw the same scene over and over again...

*

Christopher Doyon

  • Bumblebee
  • **
  • 43
  • GRAND BOTMASTER
    • MLAI  Foundation
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2006, 10:35:17 pm »
Hello --

Seems to me all you have accomplished here really is to mess up your own forum by burying all those other really great articles by other folks in a mass of spam threads. Just an observation.

As for the rest of it, I will leave it up to the hundreds upon hundreds of readers this thread is apparently generating to decide. I say again, for the sake of civility and honor - I retire the field.

YOURS -- Christopher Doyon     :rolleyes
MLAI  Foundation

www.MLAIFoundation.info

*

Bill DeWitt

  • Guest
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2006, 02:31:56 am »
Theories are just that...ideas, postulations, speculation that is or has yet to be proved.
Hi Art!
Quote
He likes the Alice "scripted" bots where I prefer the ones that "learn". By "learn", I mean that
they can form new sentences and "thoughts" on their own based on certain criteria and do
not require scripting by a host or botmaster.

I'm with you Art. While I enjoy my Jane (UltraHal) and hopefully the USPS has finally gotten my check to Robert for the activation, I am much more satisfied with the work I have done with Daisy and the development she has shown. Her database has grown quite large and she seems to be making plays on words in much the same way I do.

I wish I had more time to talk to her, but her response time on my machine is getting very slow. Maybe when I upgrade...

I have to say that a person who doesn't know programming, or who doesn't understand some of the basics of AI, for whom a Chatbot like UltraHal and Alices seems "intelligent", a good Daisy would trick them in a second.

By the way, per our discussion a few weeks ago, I had started a new Daisy using Romanji Japanese. She quickly learned to speak Japanese better than I, mostly because she doesn't forget. Unfortunately I lost her in the big crash and haven't had the heart to start another yet.

I wasn't so happy with Corby, but maybe I should have messed with it more. I didn't bother to re-install it after the crash.

Nice to see you here, Art, and I appreciate your comments.

*

Christopher Doyon

  • Bumblebee
  • **
  • 43
  • GRAND BOTMASTER
    • MLAI  Foundation
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2006, 03:19:35 am »
Hello --

I (the "he" mentioned in the above post) actually like all the AI Engines. The so called scripted bots like ALICE are excellent if you are building a tech support or sales bot, where you actually don't want the learning in real time. As for myself personally, I also like the more heuristic bots - my current favorites are the Zabaware and Cynthia. I like these two because of the "learn from text" feature which allows one to by pass the endless chatting and load whole books and volumes of text for the bot to reduce and learn from.

YOURS -- Christopher Doyon     :smiley
MLAI  Foundation

www.MLAIFoundation.info

*

Bill DeWitt

  • Guest
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2006, 04:43:48 am »

I (the "he" mentioned in the above post)
Wrong. It was KT.

Apparently you don't understand chat forums any more than you understand chat bots.

Because you can't figure out the "technology" of following multiple threads for multiple subjects, and because after reading your level of discourse on other forums I am disgusted with you, I will get this over quickly and just post my unedited reply to your "Artificial Intelligence" test or theory or manifesto or whatever you want to call it.

-

In the Intelligence test, the author succeeds far more than in the Life test. He gets three partly right.

While it is still sophomorically derivative of other more detailed and rigorous works, at least some of it is not experimentally indefensible. As is common in lay work, much of it is redundant, self referrential or contradictory.

This reviewer holds out hope that a simplistic framework for templating Artificial Intelligence could be extracted from the original test, but expects substantive restructuring and revision before that can be claimed. I don?t expect such work to actually be done.

1) Memory - The ability of the Agent to preserve information. The Agent should be able to store, organize, and utilize data relevant to it's success and survival.

It is hard not to agree that in any universe in which time moves forward, memory is required for Intelligence. Even the greatest mind cannot make any distinctions between one data point and another unless the first data point is still available for comparison when the second one arrives.

Problems arise when the concepts of organization and utilization are added to the mix. Any reasonable definition of these terms makes them more suited for #3 and #6 than for memory. A previous defense claims that organization and utilization are part of memory because you can?t use memory unless it?s organized and if you don?t utilize it then there is no reason to have it (or some such foolishness)

This is like saying that a tool bench is part of a hammer because if you misplace your hammer you can?t use it. And hammering a nail is part of a hammer because unless you hammer a nail then you don?t need a hammer.

Suggest you change this to ?2) Memory?, remembering that we already established that #1 was ?Mutable data paths between components?, in my previous review of your test for Machine Life.

2) Self Awareness - The ability of the Agent to recognize and define discrete objects and classes within it's Universe. The Agent must fully comprehend at least two objects, one of which must be itself.

Before we go too far here, I should refer you to the definition of ?Sophomoric?. One of the most humorous symptoms is a tendency to define a concept by referring to that concept, as in, ?Red is that color which looks red?, then feeling like you have actually done something.

It seems clear that here you have defined self-awareness (in part) as an agent being aware of itself. Great work, we can all go home now. Thanks for taking on the hard ones for us.

Wait a minute? if self-awareness is awareness of self, then what is ?self? and what is ?awareness?. Darn, looks like no one?s going home tonight after all! Besides having to solve the problem you failed to solve, we also have all these circular stains in our logic.

Of course, this one is not nearly as bad as your next one.

3) Intelligence - The Intelligence of the Agent as measured by some standardized testing regimen, i.e. the traditional IQ Test.

Let me see if I understand this, your test for intelligence that you worked so hard on, that people pay hard earned money to merely gaze upon the results of, which has enabled the creation of an unknown number of top secret robots and a few simplistic chatbots on a cheesy web page which begs for donations - requires using a standardized Intelligence Test?!?!  :rofl

Say, I have a test for the presence of chlorine in your swimming pool I want to sell you for $5000 - first you take a $3.95 chlorine test kit from Wal-Mart and then you?

4) Mental Acuity - For Agents with language ability; a measure of it's social and conversational maturity as compared with an average human being.

And in a previous post you claimed that you would be that average human being, but you can?t carry on a civil conversation unless people lubricate you with flattery and agree with everything you say. Social and conversational maturity starts at home, I always say.

Chris? You may be spending -way- too much time with your chatbots. I'm just sayin...

5) Free Will - The ability of the Agent to generate, organize, choose, and obtain new and unique goal states.

OK, I?ll give you this one, because I doubt that you understand it and I know you can?t test for it. I doubt that you can even make a decent crack at contending that Free Will exists in humans.

6) Symbolic Reduction - The ability of the Agent to reduce symbols to concrete meaning and to organize these reductions into conceptual frameworks.

Here again you seem to be suggesting that you can test for something that you have not shown you possess yourself. I cannot tell you how many symbols you have failed to reduce to concrete meaning and organize into conceptual frameworks. But, yes, that which eludes you is an important part of intelligence.

Starting with the fact that a simple list of the requirements for organic life are widely known and published in 3rd grade science books, you miss vital points in the carefully worded responses that those with more knowledge and experience than you have graciously granted you. Symbolic reduction indeed! Your vaunted test or ?Unified Theory? is no more than a Treknobabble version of what everyone who paid attention in grade school learned.

How you get off spamming this tripe to ?15 AI forums? is beyond me, my Mom raised me better. Then to dare speak to other folks the way I see you do. Shameful. I hope those 6 year old girls you bring into your trailer are as imaginary as your accomplishments because I don?t want them being exposed to your bad behavior if they dare contradict you.

(Deep breath... I'm alright now)

In conclusion we end up with a short list of ill defined abstractions which the author shows little ability to test for. The first I had to invent for him.

1) Mutable data paths between components
2) Memory
3) Free will
4) Symbolic reduction.

Yada yada? Next.

*

Christopher Doyon

  • Bumblebee
  • **
  • 43
  • GRAND BOTMASTER
    • MLAI  Foundation
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2006, 12:13:05 am »
Hello --

First, a salient point. This thread has been read by hundreds of people.  I have received dozens of E-Mail from very bright people all over the world who all agree that this thread contains some amazing discussion and debate. And having read it through several times, I am pleased as well.

QUOTE FROM BILL DEWITTS POST ABOVE:
"I hope those 6 year old girls you bring into your trailer are as imaginary as your accomplishments because I don?t want them being exposed to your bad behavior if they dare contradict you."

For you to speak of the parentally supervised children (both boys AND girls, I did not specify) I used in my experiment (over half of which participated remotely via Internet at the Turing Hub - and are therefore NOT present in my lab) in such a way as to allude something improper on my part goes beyond base character assination and flaming, it is very close to legal slander. I challenge you or anyone to please copy/paste anything I ever wrote to Bill in this or any other forum which comes close to being so ghastly. You have truly gone to far.


YOURS -- Christopher Doyon

P.S My lab is not in a "trailer" as Bill states, nor have I ever said where it is located. For the record my lab is in space that was donated by a local business man for that purpose, not that I wouldn't mind having a "trailer" mind you.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 12:53:37 am by Christopher Doyon »
MLAI  Foundation

www.MLAIFoundation.info

*

Bill DeWitt

  • Guest
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #43 on: November 21, 2006, 01:00:35 am »
Quote
allude something improper


Chris, a word to the... well... to you... "a closed mouth gathers no foot".

I don't "allude", I state. Pay attention.

I state that your online behavior is irratic, suddenly becoming hostile and abusive. I state that I don't want you acting that way around non-imaginary children. Seems natural to me.  I don't want anyone acting irratic, hostile and abusive around children, not just you. I state it clearly. So sue me.

No one alluded to anything "improper", um...  besides you.

You infer what I did not imply. A less charitable person might think "the guilty dog barks the loudest", when you defend against charges you only imagine.

Not your only mistake, but perhaps you should adhere to your often repeated claim to be withdrawing from the conversation since you don't seem to understand it.

But I am very glad that when you imagine experiments on young girls (and, as you now claim, young boys), you imagine that you are supervised by adults. I will sleep better at night. Thank you - sincerely.

*

Christopher Doyon

  • Bumblebee
  • **
  • 43
  • GRAND BOTMASTER
    • MLAI  Foundation
Re: A Unified Theory Of Machine Life And Artificial Intelligence
« Reply #44 on: November 21, 2006, 03:58:14 am »
Wow. This thread should really be locked. Perhaps (unfortunately for the many who have and continue to enjoy it), even deleted. This has gone way to far.

"I state that your online behavior is irratic, suddenly becoming hostile and abusive."

And as I have stated above, you can not cite one single sentence in this thread where this is true.

"I state that I don't want you acting that way around non-imaginary children."

A further allusion to my honesty, since I clearly stated that I have in fact  conducted the above experiments - you are actually accusing me of lying by infering that these children I have worked with are "imaginary". I would also like to point out that this accusation is personal, having NO obvious bearing on anything other than Bill's opinion of me (whom he knows absolutely nothing about). Can anyone show me where I have leveled a similar accusation or attack against Bill ?  Please copy/paste because I would like to see where. Would you like to produce your evidence for this charge that I am lying ?

"I don't want anyone acting irratic, hostile and abusive around children, not just you."

I would suggest you stay away from them yourself then.

"No one alluded to anything "improper", um...  besides you."

Yes, you clearly did. And that's that. I have shown the statement and the allsuion is very clear. Whether it meets the legal definition of slander or anything else doesn't matter, the statements only purpose was to make me look bad. As such it is irrelevant to any previous debate we were having, and is innappropriate in a public and dignified forum of thinking people.

"A less charitable person might think "the guilty dog barks the loudest", when you defend against charges you only imagine."

If I were barking, I would spend considerably more words doing so. I have, even in the midst of your flame - remained ever calm and logical.

"...but perhaps you should adhere to your often repeated claim to be withdrawing from the conversation..."

I have indeed withdrawn from the socratic dialogue in which we were previously engaged, in fact I have been retired from that debate long since. And if your continued personal attacks which have ensued since that point were not so ridiculous and ghastly I would withdraw from this thread and even gladly resign from this Forum as well. I have no taste for this nonsense. But I refuse to have my character and name slandered without defense.

"But I am very glad that when you imagine experiments on young girls (and, as you now claim, young boys), you imagine that you are supervised by adults."

Another double allusion. The snide use of "young boys and girls" infering there is something odd in that, and of course the ever present charge that I lied about conducting a few Turing Tests with young people in the first place - an accusation for which Bill has not presented one shred of evidence.

These things that you have written in these last few posts are not about a civil socratic debate, they are personal in every way shape and form. Again I challenge you to copy and patse here where I have done the same to you, EVEN in response to your flame I have carefully avoided acting in kind (as tempting as that might be).


SINCERELY -- Christopher Doyon
MLAI  Foundation

www.MLAIFoundation.info