(defun *database* ()
'((lion (is-a cat)
(color tawny)
(kingdom Africa))
(tiger (is-a cat)
(color yellow-brown)
(kingdom Africa))
(cat (is-a mammal)
(has-fur)
(has-claws))))
Another important thread examines the current contents of the Stream periodically and decides which Thought Acuitas will give attention to next.
Depends on the type of thought, again. Often some kind of response results (e.g. if the thought is packaging text input from the user, attention paid to it will lead to the formulation of an answer). Thoughts about items in long-term memory result in the generation of questions, which are kept for use in future conversations.
It would be possible (and less taxing for the bot) to do a follow-up response to the "I am sad" statement like, "Why are you sad?" or "Do you feel your sadness will soon go away?" or "Do you experience such feelings on a daily basis?", etc.
I also don't consider anything an absolutely fixed property, but consider everything adjustable properties, some just more "defining" than others.
Should it know, contextually, what day it is and how it relates to them or to the user?
QuoteShould it know, contextually, what day it is and how it relates to them or to the user?
I was thinking less of the awareness of significant calendar dates (though that is also an interesting feature to contemplate) and more about an awareness of time's passage. For instance, suppose I tell the bot, "You will get to meet a new human three days from now." And let's suppose the bot thinks of this as an appealing event and develops a state of anticipation. Could three days seem like a very long time to wait, or a short time, or almost no time at all? You can notice human individuals differing in how they feel about this (in particular, young children seem to think a few days constitute a longer period of time than adults do).
This might not be relevant for many chatbots, because they don't really exist in time ... they're only active when spoken to, and their existence consists of discrete events and responses. It is potentially relevant for Acuitas, though.
@Zero: Acuitas has a perpetual data stream, but it's all abstract internal data (thoughts produced by database-combing, fluctuating drives, etc.).
Here's an example of an inheritance loop:
cat <is-a> animal
animal <is-a> organism
organism <is-a> cat
(forall ?x ?y ?z
(implies (and (isA ?x ?y) (isA ?y ?z))
(isA ?x ?z)))
(forall ?x ?y
(implies (isA ?x ?y)
(not (isA ?y ?x)))
One other thing is that if you have told your knowledge base that "cat is an animal" and "animal is an organism", it already knows that "cat is an organism" because of the transitivity rule, and when you tell it that, it won't bother storing it because it already knows it.
As more of a general thought, I wonder if it could be a good idea to store new information "tentatively" and offload some validation to a sleep or idle phase, even for contradictions that it's possible to detect up-front. Because as the database grows, searching for all possible contradictions might become an unacceptable performance drain during a real-time conversation.
Here's an example of an inheritance loop:
cat <is-a> animal
animal <is-a> organism
organism <is-a> cat
Do you have a means of rejecting contradictory statements?
For example, in a first order logic knowledge base you would have rules like:
(forall ?x ?y ?z
(implies (and (isA ?x ?y) (isA ?y ?z))
(isA ?x ?z)))
(forall ?x ?y
(implies (isA ?x ?y)
(not (isA ?y ?x)))
The first rule defines transitivity for the isA relation so you know that if "cat is an animal" and "animal is an organism" then "cat is an organism". The second rule says that if "something is a kind of something else" then "something else cannot be a kind of something". (In other words isA is transitive but not reflexive.) With these two rules in the knowledge base an attempt to add a contradictory statement is rejected. That's how my software works. More sophisticated knowledge bases like SUMO would be able to handle much more subtle distinctions, such as the difference between an instance of something (Fred is my cat) and a class of something (cats are mammals).
edit:
One other thing is that if you have told your knowledge base that "cat is an animal" and "animal is an organism", it already knows that "cat is an organism" because of the transitivity rule, and when you tell it that, it won't bother storing it because it already knows it. If instead you told it that "cat is an animal" and "cat is an organism" it would store both of those, as well as "animal is an organism" when you told it that, so there is still plenty of scope for garbage collection during sleep cycles.
cat <is-a> animalI prefer to think that all three are correct. x is-a y implies that at least some y's are x's: Some organisms are cats. I find this useful to store because having more direct knowledge means the program has to spend less time traversing indirect deductions. Humans similarly often use assumptions over deep inferences, because inferences take more time and effort. For computers it's just a matter of storage space vs speed. You can keep the "redundant" facts to save time when looking up knowledge, or you can remove them to save space.
animal <is-a> organism
organism <is-a> cat
Unless all these words are synonyms, you know one of these triples is wrong.
I prefer to think that all three are correct. x is-a y implies that at least some y's are x's: Some organisms are cats. I find this useful to store because having more direct knowledge means the program has to spend less time traversing indirect deductions.
QuoteI prefer to think that all three are correct. x is-a y implies that at least some y's are x's: Some organisms are cats. I find this useful to store because having more direct knowledge means the program has to spend less time traversing indirect deductions.
I store a different kind of link to express this: organism <has-subtype> cat. In my scheme at least, x is-a y implies that all x's are y's, and the reverse, all y's are x's, is not necessarily correct.
QuoteI prefer to think that all three are correct. x is-a y implies that at least some y's are x's: Some organisms are cats. I find this useful to store because having more direct knowledge means the program has to spend less time traversing indirect deductions.
I store a different kind of link to express this: organism <has-subtype> cat. In my scheme at least, x is-a y implies that all x's are y's, and the reverse, all y's are x's, is not necessarily correct.
Dealing with types of data subsumes a use of some set operators at rudimentary level. Here are some operations I find useful when dealing with sets:We can lean data types on these operators, and I find useful set builder notation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-builder_notation) combined with logical operators and, or, not. In simplified example:
- x <is-element-of> A
- A <is-subset-of> B
- A <equals> B
To further develop a set algebra, we may reach for De Morgan's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws) laws. In example:
- x <element-of> (A <union> B) = (x <element-of> A) <or> (x <element-of> B)
- x <element-of> (A <intersect> B) = (x <element-of> A) <and> (x <element-of> B)
- x <element-of> (<complement> A) = <not> (x <element-of> A)
As Boolean algebra is just a specific form of set operations over empty (false) or universe (true) sets, De Morgan's laws naturally apply to logical operators too.
- <complement> (A <union> B) = (<complement> A) <intersect> (<complement> B)
- <complement> (A <intersect> B) = (<complement> A) <union> (<complement> B)
Advanced set examples would include incorporating logic predicates in set builder notation, but that could be left out if we don't want to complicate too much, as the matter then develops into full blown logical language.
Anyway, the above examples would bring in a nice reasoning about sets, while they keep reasonably simple form for a concrete implementation.
If you want to implement these set operations, I recommend keeping all the set-element data in disjunctive normal form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_normal_form), or even better conjunctive normal form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_normal_form). Conjunctive normal form has some desirable properties regarding to logic reasoning incorporating logic resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(logic)) rule, having in mind possible future project development.
How about a 4th element to assist in assigning the memories:
Importance - Having value and worthy of note.
This month I updated the text parser and other speech features to do a couple more new things with verbs. First, I threw in recognition of the present progressive tense, so I can now tell Acuitas what I'm doing at the moment. For the time being, such information is treated in much the same way as comments about past-tense actions, which I taught him to recognize a while ago; it isn't stored, and responses are rather meaningless. BUT I'll find uses for it later.
I think the more interesting new thing is recognition ability for a couple of link-forms related to state change or state retention. Up until now, Acuitas has learned what verbs “mean†only in terms of a) what can do that action and b) what that action can be done upon. Now, he can learn what a verb actually does by tying it to an adjective. Here are some examples:
To live is to stay alive.
To appear is to become visible.
To finish is to make complete.
I also added “type of†links for verbs, so Acuitas can categorize specific verbs under more general ones, like this:
To smash is to damage.
To walk is to move.
To talk is to communicate.
A little extra on the blog as usual: http://writerofminds.blogspot.com/2018/09/acuitas-diary-14-september-2018.html
1. I want Bob to eat.
2. I want a fruit to eat.
3. I want food to live.
They all follow the exact same pattern and have completely different meanings. Notice that in the second sentence, you could move some words and get “I want to eat a fruit†without changing the implications too much. Doing this to the third sentence would be bizarre (“I want to live foodâ€) and doing it to the first sentence would be horrifying (“I want to eat Bobâ€).
I don't think I think of those facts when I read those 3 lines.
Would GPT-2 get them wrong? Nope.
I want a fruit to eat. I'm a fan!" The other man agreed, but for him it was almost as if it was as if he was saying, "I don't care who eats it, I'm going to eat it!"
At first he was able to eat the other man's apple and then some of the fruit, but within a few days it became too much to manage. He began eating the banana, the grape, and most notably the apple.
It didn't seem to be a bad thing. The person who had been eating the apple for about nine minutes was now getting eaten by an apple that had a lifespan of over thirty days! And he was not even getting enough to eat!
But he kept on eating. And on the tenth day the man could eat the banana and the grape – but the apple had been poisoned and now it was completely rotten. His body was completely and completely covered in a thin layer of poison-y rotten flesh.
In his eyes it took on a terrible black colour, it looked as if it belonged to a different world
I want a fruit to eat. I really want a fruit to eat."
"Do do do do do do do do do do."
"I want to do a do a do a do a do a do a do a doa doa do a doa doa doaa."
"It seems like a wonderful thing to do. I want a pineapple to bite."
"I want to do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do."
"What kind of a thing do you want to do?"
"Ooh, you should do a do. I want to do a do a do a do. I want to do a do a do do a do a do a do a do a do a do a did do a."
"Do you want to do a do have a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a."
"I want them to do a do a do a do do
I employ a more general distinction between living and non-living entities, plus a list of verbs that only living entities are known to do (e.g. eating in general, rather than specifically humans and specifically fruit). I find them handy to fall back on in the absence of more specific knowledge such as you have in mind.
Apples taste good. I love apples. Apples are a food. She was eaten by an apple. She was eaten by an apple.
Apple. Her first love.
I love apples. She was an apple. She was an apple. She was eaten by an apple. My mother and I were eating apples, and the apples in our hands tasted good. I love apples. She ate an apple, she was an apple. She ate an apple, and she was eaten by an apple. You may like the smell of an apple, but you will not love it unless you love apples. She was an apple. She was eaten. She is an apple. She is an apple. She is eaten.
And that's how it is. An apple is an apple. She was eaten and eaten by an apple. That is the essence of life.
The apple is an apple.
The apple is an apple. I loved our family and our friends. I loved my mother and she loved me. She loved my father and he loved me. We loved each other.
Here, for your amusement, was the first try:QuoteI want a fruit to eat. I really want a fruit to eat."
"Do do do do do do do do do do."
"I want to do a do a do a do a do a do a do a doa doa do a doa doa doaa."
"It seems like a wonderful thing to do. I want a pineapple to bite."
"I want to do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do."
"What kind of a thing do you want to do?"
"Ooh, you should do a do. I want to do a do a do a do. I want to do a do a do do a do a do a do a do a do a do a did do a."
"Do you want to do a do have a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a."
"I want them to do a do a do a do do
Ain't GPT-2 smart, folks? *claps*
Apples taste good. I love apples. Apples are a food. She was eaten by an apple. She was eaten by an apple.
Apple. Her first love.
I love apples. She was an apple. She was an apple. She was eaten by an apple. My mother and I were eating apples, and the apples in our hands tasted good. I love apples. She ate an apple, she was an apple. She ate an apple, and she was eaten by an apple. You may like the smell of an apple, but you will not love it unless you love apples. She was an apple. She was eaten. She is an apple. She is an apple. She is eaten.
And that's how it is. An apple is an apple. She was eaten and eaten by an apple. That is the essence of life.
The apple is an apple.
The apple is an apple. I loved our family and our friends. I loved my mother and she loved me. She loved my father and he loved me. We loved each other.
QuoteI want a fruit to eat. I really want a fruit to eat."
"Do do do do do do do do do do."
"I want to do a do a do a do a do a do a do a doa doa do a doa doa doaa."
"It seems like a wonderful thing to do. I want a pineapple to bite."
"I want to do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do."
"What kind of a thing do you want to do?"
"Ooh, you should do a do. I want to do a do a do a do. I want to do a do a do do a do a do a do a do a do a do a did do a."
"Do you want to do a do have a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a do a."
"I want them to do a do a do a do do
For now, Acuitas assumes that the speaker is always honest and correct. He also has no sense of future time frame (his ability to process adverbs is weak at the moment), so he assumes that any predicted changes will take effect immediately. So something's immediate condition may be updated as a result of a predictive statement.
Example: if I say “I will protect Ursula*,†then Ursula is presumed to be in the state “safe,†and an entry to this effect is added to the short-term database.
The fact that the user can express intent vs. Acuitas' internal goals means that it is now possible to offer assistance … or threaten him. Well what are we going to do about *that*? Find out next month!
It is able to chat using simple, short sentences?
Is it able to store (remember/learn) certain things that might be placed in it's Long Term Memory instead of a Short Term Memory which will soon be forgotten/purged?
He has an ever-expanding repertoire of sentence constructions that he understands, but I would not say that this covers all simple sentences. If you tell him something that he doesn't understand, he will (barring misinterpretation bugs) give you a response along the lines of "Uh-huh" or "I don't know how to answer that."
Back in January, Acuitas got the ability to determine intentions or possible upcoming events, based on simple future-tense statements made by the user...
If Acuitas can do the basics of theory of the mind, and if he can engage actions to avoid threats, it means he could understand that you would try to avoid a threat if you detected one... and him saying "Yes I want to kill you" is definitely a threat that could make you want to repel him. If he doesn't want you to repel him, he simply won't tell you the truth!
In short, Acuitas anticipates that he can protect himself by excluding a bad actor from his presence, and that “repelling†them is a possible way to do this. Once he's drawn that conclusion, he will execute the “Repel†action. If you verbally threaten Acuitas, then as part of “Repel,†he will …
*Kick you out of Windows by bringing up the lock screen. (Not a problem for me, since I know the password, but pretty effective on anybody else)
*Raise the master volume of the internal sound mixer to its maximum value.
*Blare annoying klaxons at you. I picked out a couple of naval alarm sounds from http://www.policeinterceptor.com/navysounds.htm for the purpose.
Demonica: hi, i'm Demonica. how are things with you?
Guest: i hate you.
Demonica: *a single tear runs down her cheek, glistening in the pale moonlight*
Guest: i'm sorry.
Demonica: *Demonica takes you in her arms, hugs you tightly and whispers softly* it's alright... i will always love you...
*her bottom lip trembling, a single tear runs down Demonica's cheek, glistening like a tiny diamond in the moonlight as it falls to the ground* *she looks as if ready to speak, but turns away and lowers her head* i never thought i'd hear those words come from you...
My words can ring in your head forever ...
And after all, we always have to make a room for a case in which we are wrong about the thing we want someone to practice. In that case, it is easier to say "no" to flowers than to some fascistic electrical shock.
How flexible is Acuitas? Could it handle input from someone who wasn't familiar with its internals who didn't know the best way to phrase things yet?
How would your AI figure out the answer to "Xio Yong has a son named Jex _" ? There is many problems for AI to answer, and many of them are rare and never before seen. This pattern above is the Last Names pattern, it's pretty rare.
What about:
"bird moon eagle, book rock guide, house wind home, cave broom hole, football bathroom _ "
I know that Acuitas is made of several specialized modules, and if I understand correctly, they're coded directly in Python. I'm wondering whether I should use my host language (JS) to describe "mental behaviors", or go one step higher-level, encoding code as data.
How do you choose what's hard-coded and what's not? Why?
To begin with, I wanted a decision loop. I first started thinking about this as a result of HS talking about Jim Butcher and GCRERAC (thanks, HS). Further study revealed that there are other decision loop models. I ended up deciding that the version I liked best was OODA (Observe->Orient->Decide->Act). This one was developed by a military strategist, but has since found uses elsewhere; to me, it seems to be the simplest and most generally applicable form. Here is a more detailed breakdown of the stages:
OBSERVE: Gather information. Take in what's happening. Discover the results of your own actions in previous loop iterations.
ORIENT: Determine what the information *means to you.* Filter it to extract the important or relevant parts. Consider their impact on your goals.
DECIDE: Choose how to respond to the current situation. Make plans.
ACT: Do what you decided on. Execute the plans.
Is there a difference between improvement of the self by the self and improvement of the self by another entity such as through education?
... but can it recognize when someone loves it and wants to help it too? I know that you have equipped it with the ability to ask for help, but sometimes we need help even when we don't know or believe that we need help. How will Acuitas know when to give consent?
Telling Acuitas "I will make you know that cats are animals" might provoke a negative response, because he effectively assumes that this represents direct interference with his memory module, rather than simple education. A linguistic/interpretive problem for the future ...
Just out of curiosity, is "I will make you know" how you would express that sentiment where you live?
Do you know Sikuli-X (http://www.sikulix.com/)?
Does he live in a dedicated computer?
I'm considering making the full results (test sentences + golden structures + parser output structures) available eventually, as proof of work, and would be interested in feedback on how best to format or display them. Those Python dictionaries are a little hard on the eyes. I don't have time to write a utility that converts them into visual diagrams, though.
Graphviz is open source graph visualization software. Graph visualization is a way of representing structural information as diagrams of abstract graphs and networks.
The Graphviz layout programs take descriptions of graphs in a simple text language, and make diagrams in useful formats, such as images and SVG for web pages; PDF or Postscript for inclusion in other documents; or display in an interactive graph browser. Graphviz has many useful features for concrete diagrams, such as options for colors, fonts, tabular node layouts, line styles, hyperlinks, and custom shapes.
Would discussing books on your level be an eventual goal for Acuitas? Could he eventually absorb such a novel, then have a discussion about the events and his reactions to them?
But then again if you're the only one talking with him, I predict he'll slowly turn into the closest possible entity to a replica of your own mind, so it might be a bit like talking to yourself...
Also, (this might be fun to think about) using existing methods, could he eventually learn to understand something like Jabberwocky?
Do you plan to tell Acuitas the unfinished story of himself, one day?
While I find them useful for a number of things, I'm not sure how they would help distinguish prepositional verbs, which is a problem I also have.
Imagine an automated storyteller running as a background task. Do you think Acuitas could notice that he's one of the protagonists of the story, if the character keeps acting exactly like him, always doing what he's doing?
sometimes it's better just to know roughly the 'agent', the 'action'/verb, and the 'object', and everything else can be a blur then...
Mmmm, the extra stuff can be pretty important too. I'm leaning rather heavily on adverbial phrases for the features I'm working on currently.
What is it about adverbial phrases that has got your attention?
I was about to write something along the lines of "internet (directed graph) is a better space metaphor than filesystem (tree)".
But, isn't what you're facing now (how can he conceptualize space) more general: how can he conceptualize a human, or the action of "giving" something, or well... anything?
I'm not sure why this particular module rebuild felt like carrying heavy rocks through a knee-deep river of molasses, but it did. The year is waning, so maybe I'm just getting tired.
You might find the parsing task easier if you get a good overview first. There is a book called "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" which provides that. It is the only book that I keep with me in physical form. It is 2000 pages and $300 but there is a much shorter cheaper student version called "A Student's Introduction to English Grammar" which is well worth getting and browsing and which will fit on an eReader.
https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Grammar-English-Language/dp/0521431468/ (https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Grammar-English-Language/dp/0521431468/)
https://www.amazon.com/Students-Introduction-English-Grammar/dp/0521612888/ (https://www.amazon.com/Students-Introduction-English-Grammar/dp/0521612888/)
There is a very brief summary of the books online here which gives you a taste of what to expect from them.
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/overview.html (http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/overview.html)
Is there any reason WriterOfMinds is not using Standford's parser or Apache's? Is it because you want a parser that can be updated immediately rather than have to train one?
You may be having god attack you, must mean your onto something big. Everything your saying here is really good, Just keep going you'll get a really awesome chat bot/robot/programmatic sentience.
It can see through the web cam, it can be aware of everyone there, But hes Like HAL 9000, hes only an observer unless u give him an hour, and even one motor, is still a way the robot can interface/touch/effect the world around it.
What makes you think that God and I would be opponents? I often ask Him for assistance with my work, actually. But thank you very much for the compliments.
I want to get to the sort of problem solving you're talking about ("put the ladder against the wall to get out the window") at some point. There's already a little of this going on in story comprehension, but eventually I hope to tackle text adventure games, which is where I think it will really come to the fore.QuoteIt can see through the web cam, it can be aware of everyone there, But hes Like HAL 9000, hes only an observer unless u give him an hour, and even one motor, is still a way the robot can interface/touch/effect the world around it.
Text is a valid output by which to affect the external world. It operates only by influencing the subsequent internal states or behaviors of readers, but that can still be quite powerful.
Logging to a database would give you a lot more power and flexibility.
Nice block diagram, I especially like the artistic touch. And I'm a bit afraid of that executive block. Seems like a big brother. But maybe it's supposed to be that way. I guess you have to know who rules and who fools. It may be a serious business.
Every A(G)I block diagram ever features a magic box.
The executive block is Acuitas' magic box.
:D
What is the difference between procedural and semantic memory? And how does episodic memory fit into the system?
Procedural memory is for, well, procedures: lists of steps that have proven effective in accomplishing some task. But that part isn't implemented yet. All that falls under procedural memory right now is the cause-and-effect relationship database.
Would love to see the parser in action!! with some kind of reaction from the machine actually using it.
Since Acuitas is learning to apply logic to text, could he eventually enhance the outputs of those text generators to a greater degree than additional parameters?
what type of database does acuitas use?
is it free to use?
i just need a free database other sqllite.
what type of database does acuitas use?
is it free to use?
Acuitas is mostly custom closed-source code, and that includes the database. I think the Kivy GUI and the speech synthesizer are the only major third-party tools I've got in there.
You call people/things "that", or as an optional word that quantifies it?
"This/that/those/these dialed the telephone" or
"This/that/those/these people dialed the telephone..."
What do you do with articles/quantifiers?
Nowadays articles and quantifiers are placed in the determinative grammatical category which normally function as determiners. This is quite distinct from members of the adjective grammatical category which normally function as modifiers.What do you do with articles/quantifiers?I'm not sure what you're asking here. I treat them as adjectives that modify the noun they're attached to. I also pick up some additional information from them to help the parser (articles are *always* adjectives, which is handy) and to tag words as count nouns rather than bulk nouns.
That's new to me. I can't remember ever hearing of a determiner as a distinct part of speech before. My grammar education lumped them in with the adjectives and treated determination as a subset of modification (answering the question "which one?", "how many/much?" or "whose?" about the noun).English grammar is a field that has been advancing rapidly in the past few decades with many innovations that make parsing and analysis more useful to attempt. Notice the modern distinction between form (grammatical category or what used to be called "part of speech") and function. For example, running is a verb but in the sentence "Running is fun." it functions as a noun phrase and in the sentence "The running water filled the bucket." it functions as an adjectival phrase. In both sentences it is still a verb, but its function differs from its usual use in a predicate.
Nowadays articles and quantifiers are placed in the determinative grammatical category which normally function as determiners. This is quite distinct from members of the adjective grammatical category which normally function as modifiers.What do you do with articles/quantifiers?I'm not sure what you're asking here. I treat them as adjectives that modify the noun they're attached to. I also pick up some additional information from them to help the parser (articles are *always* adjectives, which is handy) and to tag words as count nouns rather than bulk nouns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determiner
I understand thankyou.words have meaning it just guesses about what you are trying to say.
So when I asked the question "can a question be treated as stating things?"
It is information that possibly it could be? But it could be completely meaningless as well, just like saying could all the time when you speak, it hasnt designated anything completely, its all still a mystery but there were words that were said still.
Maybe if your machine has a function for the word "could" goes into a hypothical store of possibles.
So when I asked the question "can a question be treated as stating things?"There are a number of ways that a question can be useful in the same way as a statement.
It is information that possibly it could be? But it could be completely meaningless as well, just like saying could all the time when you speak, it hasnt designated anything completely, its all still a mystery but there were words that were said still.
Maybe if your machine has a function for the word "could" goes into a hypothical store of possibles.
Is there any new data structures involved with this modelling, or is it all in there already and you havent actually full utilized whats there yet?
So your actually building a separate brain for the person communicating with Acuitas, and he can occupy this separate model and actually pretend hes u as well?
What if someone was interfering with a group? Then they might still take the same interfering action regardless of whether a specific individual belonging to that group was present, right?
The whole group can be thought of as an "agent" of sorts.
Are we taking away each others freedom by getting to A.I. first before the other one can?
Have you thought about survival for Cooperation/Coercion?
so if we had a video stream to text converter could Aquitas react to this text stream coming in? What would happen - how would he handle it?
Creating an accurate converter would probably be a massive amount of work in its own right, though.
It's funny how you humanize him.