Leatherbound AI notes p16 (2003)

Leatherbound AI notes p16

Sunday, November 20, 2005

8:02 PM

5/1/2003

I have tried to narrow the focus of my AI project to communication. Should the brain be one that evolves into language? Letters are innate knowledge, words and rules are learned. So what rules govern letters?

All AI knows is that a string of characters is communication. Limited character count will help limit scope of communication in much the same way our larynx and mouth pronounce a finite range of sounds - ears only hear a limited spectrum.

A computer must know you are there to communicate

What do we do when we think?

Problem solve: Traverse cept trees: collate compare contrast condense

[11/20/2005 After reading over the last few pages, I feel like screaming at my 2003 self. Good lord. Get out of this minutia. Letters are just cepts used to describe words. Should AI evolve into language? Before I am too hard on myself, I have to explain where I was going at the time. I was imagining a system that could be taught much like an infant…

In this romantic vision, the program would see words on the screen and imitate them back. It would study the back and forth relationship of words out and words in to learn to speak. This system would need an administrative layer that would be used to monitor and teach the brain of AI while it worked. Actually, this tool will be necessary anyway… But I think the system can start with an essentially blank slate but pre-programmed with knowledge that will constitute learning tools. It will understand statements of assignment when phrased a certain way.]

Leatherbound AI notes p16 (2003)

Leatherbound AI notes p16

Sunday, November 20, 2005

8:02 PM

5/1/2003

I have tried to narrow the focus of my AI project to communication. Should the brain be one that evolves into language? Letters are innate knowledge, words and rules are learned. So what rules govern letters?

All AI knows is that a string of characters is communication. Limited character count will help limit scope of communication in much the same way our larynx and mouth pronounce a finite range of sounds - ears only hear a limited spectrum.

A computer must know you are there to communicate

What do we do when we think?

Problem solve: Traverse cept trees: collate compare contrast condense

[11/20/2005 After reading over the last few pages, I feel like screaming at my 2003 self. Good lord. Get out of this minutia. Letters are just cepts used to describe words. Should AI evolve into language? Before I am too hard on myself, I have to explain where I was going at the time. I was imagining a system that could be taught much like an infant…

In this romantic vision, the program would see words on the screen and imitate them back. It would study the back and forth relationship of words out and words in to learn to speak. This system would need an administrative layer that would be used to monitor and teach the brain of AI while it worked. Actually, this tool will be necessary anyway… But I think the system can start with an essentially blank slate but pre-programmed with knowledge that will constitute learning tools. It will understand statements of assignment when phrased a certain way.]

Leatherbound AI notes p15 (2003)

Leatherbound AI notes p15

Sunday, November 20, 2005

7:42 PM

AI needs to be able to communicate back to its instructor (External monitoring is an option  instead). I'm trying to avoid a conditioned response for not understanding. The actual  response should be learned behavior. I keep thinking back to training animals - if you want to  train an animal what "sit" means, you say the word and push on their hind quarters until they  are in a sitting position. (This is oversimplification)

The point is that core language evolves out of physical interaction. You can not physically  interact with a computer on the same level as a human, so language instruction will be  difficult at best.

Teaching language by way of the language without other assistance may be impossible  without a lot of innate traits. Imagine instructing a child by using only words on a screen.

I can see AI evolving from a point of knowledge of words but right now I'm having trouble  seeing it evolve -into- words.

What would motivate it to communicate?

[11/20/2005 At this point I'm WAY over thinking the problem. Yes it would be great if I could  come up with a mechanism that would allow AI to learn words by starting from zero, but that  would take too long. I think it will be necessary to start AI off with a small vocabulary that  will allow instruction. The vocabulary will be soft as opposed to hardwired so it can be  learned, unlearned and even evolve over time.]

Leatherbound AI notes p14 (2003)

Leatherbound AI notes p14

Sunday, November 20, 2005

7:35 PM

 

The AI's world is "letter" based.

A SMALL TREE

On awakening, this will look like X_QVTEE XRYY until words are understood.

Question: do spaces qualify as characters or are they preprogrammed breaks?

I believe they should be considered characters like any other.

If the AI learns to interpret these itself, then it will be that much more flexible.

So establishing the inherited traits vs learned behavior should be fairly simple

Innate Abilities

• Recognition of characters
• Recognition of incoming vs outgoing characters

Learned

• Recognition of groups of characters

• Note: not "words" this is to encompass phrases… which allows cepts to be more than just  words - they can be complete conceptual entities. For example: The phrase "I don't know"
• Is a single conceptual entity

[11/20/2005 This page like the last is a bit off the rails. White space will be treated like any  other character, but it should be taught that white-space = word break right away to allow  for greater ability to learn.

Innate abilities vs learned behavior should be established, but there is a third layer which is  "primary learning" or learned behavior that is taught in order to facilitate learning. It's like  grade school for AI.

Leatherbound AI notes p13 (2003)

Leatherbound AI notes p13

Sunday, November 20, 2005

7:29 PM

Refinement: cepts are not the container, cepts are the data

 

Is there a practical way to remove the second level of environment?

HARDWARE/OS+Interpreter/AI environment host

… meaning - rather than building a word interpreter - should the leraning engine start with letters as its  building block? I think it should. Our basic level of comprehension in learning to deal with the world is not a  molecule - it is an aggregate though we can add the unseen smaller world later.

Human: tangible obj. - manipulation

AI: character obj & …?

We interact with the world

Sight - object manipulation or communication and observe reaction

What is a computer assertion?

What motivates it to interact?

In order to explore capabilities one must be able to gauge reactions to actions.

[11/20/2005 major step backward with the last 2 paragraphs… shocking after such a large leap forward  with the first sentence. Cepts are the data, not the container. Why in the world did I go to 'letters as  building blocks'??? A cept can be a letter, word, phrase or small sentence. Very strange backpedaling. The  last sentence is of slight interest: I think gauging reactions will be a function of the learning process.]

Leatherbound AI notes p12 (2003)

Leatherbound AI notes p12

Sunday, November 20, 2005

7:14 PM

4/20/03

I just joined AAAI yesterday. They cover a variety of topics that I have touched on in my  journals. Amazingly, they even have a section on the mechanics of common sense. I haven't  read far into the current theory - but I still believe that they are missing the point that  "common sense" is the result of our own experimentation over time. If you distill the  mechanics of thought & enable a machine to process, learn and explore common sense will  follow naturally.

This brings me back to my original musings on the nature of thought

 

Avoid thinking of nouns and verbs. Everything is a cept with associated interactive &  combinatory rules; in fact, these rules are cepts themselves

Evaluation:

How does the evaluative process figure into the cept model?

 

[11/20/2005 - It's good to see that I correct myself in mid though sometimes. The evaluation  and link engineering should be part of the system, not the cept model itself. I think I was  trying to establish a system whose rules were flexible enough to change themselves… but the  truth is, our brains treat words and thoughts (cepts) in very consistent, predictable ways.  Even if this system turns out to be flexible, it doesn't matter because we're working within an  environment where the system doesn't require that level of flexibility. (Think: using  Newtonian physics for every day planet-earth situations as opposed to quantum mechanics.)  The goal is to mimic, not mirror.

Ignore the drawings - they're crap.]

Leatherbound AI notes p11 (2003)

Leatherbound AI notes p11

Sunday, November 20, 2005

6:52 PM

A cept is the smallest detail unit a conceptual construct which is an impossibility in reality. This is why we have so much semantic ambiguity. We keep hoping for a true parent node but never find one. Why? Because the neural field is not bounded by concrete borders.

Faith is the act of relying on individual cepts without pursuing the trails further back (causing ambiguity)

[11/20/2005 Wow. This is a can of worms. First, a cept is a construct houses a single idea. What I meant by "an impossibility in reality" is that this is not going to be the organic solution, this is a simple representation of a more complex structure. I believe semantic ambiguity will be inherent in the system as we use words to define words. The rest of that sentence is probably correct…

I do have to change my definition of Faith per my journal entry early this morning. Faith isn't the act of failing to follow a definition back to discover the untruths, it has to do with a rather radical, complicated cept - believing in that for which there is no proof. This cept changes the way we process information. "I know what I see, and what you say makes sense, but I can't believe it because God is the answer and his answer trumps all." It is a true mental weighting system at work. This particular cept has been given authority to always be higher in truth than all other facts. Fascinating]