Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
Mike, I understand what understand means. It is easy to describe what it
means to another human. But to a computer you have to define it at the level of
moving bits between registers. If you have never written software, you won't
understand the problem.
So does the following program understand?
main(){printf(Ah, now I understand!);}
You need a precise test. That is what Turing did.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sat, 9/13/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 12:18 AM
Matt: How are you going to understand the issues
behind programming a
computer for human intelligence if you have never
programmed a computer?
Matt,
We simply have a big difference of opinion. I'm saying
there is no way a
computer [or agent, period] can understand language if it
can't basically
identify/*see* (and sense) the real objects - (and
therefore doesn't know
what) - it's talking about. Hence people say when they
understand at last -
ah now I see.. now I see what you're
talking about.. now I get the
picture.
The issue of what faculties are needed to understand
language (and be
intelligent) is not, *in the first instance,* a matter of
programming. I
suggest you may have been v. uncharacteristically short in
this exchange,
because you may not like the starkness of the message. It
is stark, but I
believe it's the truth.
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial [Humor ] vs Real Approaches to Information
Jiri and Matt et al, I'm getting v. confident about the approach I've just barely begun to outline. Let's call it realistics - the title for a new, foundational branch of metacognition, that will oversee all forms of information, incl. esp. language, logic, and maths, and also all image forms, and the whole sphere of semiotics. The basic premise: to understand a piece of information and its information objects, (eg words) , is to realise (or know) how they refer to real objects in the real world, (and, ideally, and often necessarily, to be able to point to and engage with those real objects). - this includes understanding/realising when they are unreal - when they do NOT refer directly to real objects, but for example to sur-real or metaphorical or abstract or non-existent objects Realistics recognizes that understanding involves, you could say, object-ivity. Complementarily, to 'disunderstand is to fail to see how information objects refer to real objects. to be confused is not only to fail to see, but to be unsure *which* of the information objects in a piece of information do not refer to real objects (it's all a bit of a blur) Bear in mind that human information-processing involves an ENORMOUS amount of disunderstanding and confusion. And a *major point* of this approach (to be explained on another occasion) is precisely that a great deal of the time people do not understand/realise *why* they do not understand/ are confused - *why* they have such difficulty understanding genetics, atomic physics, philosophy, logic, maths, ethics, neuroscience etc. etc - just about every subject in the curriculum, academic or social - because, like virtual AGI-ers they fall into the trap of FAILING to refer the information to real objects. They do not try to realise what on earth is being talked about. And they even end up concluding (completely wrongly) that there is something wrong with their brain and its information-processing capacity, ending up with a totally unecessary inferiority complex. (There will probably be v. few here, even at this exalted level of intelligence, who are not so affected). (Realistics should enormously improve human understanding, and holds out the promise that no one will ever fail to understand any information/subject ever again for want of anything other than time and effort). Now there is a LOT more to expand here [later]. But for now it immediately raises the obvious, and inevitable object-ion to any contradictory, unreal /artificial approach to information and esp language processing/NLP such as you and many other AGIers are outlining. How will you understand, and recognize when information objects/ e.g language/words are unreal ? e.g. Turn yourself inside out. Turn that block of wood inside out. Turn around in a straight line. What's inside is not more beautiful than what's on the outside Drill down into Steve's logic. Cars can hover just above the ground The car flew into the wall. The wall flew away. Bush wants to liberalise sexual mores. Truth and beauty are incompatible. [all such statements obviously real/unreal/untrue/metaphorical in different and sometimes multiple simultaneous ways] You might also ask yourself how you will, if your approach extends beyond language, know that any image or photo is unreal. IOW how is any unreal approach to information processing (contradictory to mine) different from a putative logic that does *not* recognize truth or a maths that does *not* recognize equality/equations? Mike, The plane flew over the hill The play is over Using a formal language can help to avoid many of these issues. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. The communication module in my experimental AGI design includes several specialized editors, one of which is a Space Editor which allows to use simple objects in a small nD sample-space to define the meaning of terms like in, outside, above, under etc. The goal is to define the meaning as simply as possible and the knowledge can then be used in more complex scenes generated for problem solving purposes. Other editors: Script Editor - for writing stories the system learns from. Action Concept Editor - for learning about actions/verbs related roles/phases/changes. Category Editor - for general categorization/grouping concepts. Formula Editor - math stuff. Interface Mapper - for teaching how to use tools (e.g. external software) ... Some of those editors (probably including the Space Editor) will be available only to privileged users. It's all RBAC-based. Only lightweight 3D imagination - for performance reasons (our brains cheat too), and no embodiment.. BTW I still have a lot to code before making the system publicly accessible. To understand is .. in principle, ..to be able to go into the real world and point to the real objects/actions being referred to.. Not from my perspective.
Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To understand/realise is to be distinguished from (I would argue) to comprehend statements. How long are we going to go round and round with this? How do you know if a machine comprehends something? Turing explained why he ducked the question in 1950. Because you really can't tell. http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
Matt, What are you being so tetchy about? The issue is what it takes for any agent, human or machine.to understand information . You give me an extremely complicated and ultimately weird test/paper, which presupposes that machines, humans and everyone else can only exhibit, and be tested on, their thinking and understanding in an essentially Chinese room, insulated from the world. I am questioning, and refuting the entire assumption, behind those extraordinarily woolly ideas of Turing, (witness the endlessly convoluted discussions of his test on this group - which clearly people had great difficulty understanding precisely because it is so woolly, when you try to understand exactly what's testing). An agent understands information and information objects,IMO, if he can point to the real objects referred to in the real world, OUTSIDE any insulated room. (I am taking Searle one step further). It is on his ability to use language to engage with the real world, - fulfil commands/requests like where's the key?, what food is in the fridge? is the room tidy? (and progressively more general information objects), that an agent's understanding must be tested. That is consistent with every principle that you seem to like to invoke, of evolutionary fitness. Language and other forms of information exist primarily to enable humans to deal with real objects - and to survive - in the real world, and not in any virtual world, that academics and AGI-ers prefer to inhabit. My special distinction, I think, is v. useful - the Chinese translator and AGI's comprehend information/language - merely substituting symbols for other symbols. The agent who can use that language to deal with real objects, truly *understands* it. This explanation is consistent with how humans actually fail to understand on inumerable occasions, and also how computers and would-be AGI's fail to understand - not just outside in the real world, but *inside* their rooms/virtual worlds. All language understanding collapses without real object/world engagement. In case you are unaware how academics will go to quite extraordinary mental lengths to stay inside their rooms, see this famous passage which helped give birth to science , - re natural philosophers who, (with small modifications, like AGI-ers) having sharp and strong wits, and abundance of leisure, . as their persons were shut up in the cells of monasteries and colleges, and knowing little history, either of nature or time, did out of no great quantity of matter, and infinite agitation of wit spin out unto those laborious webs of learning which are extant in their books. For the wit and mind of man, if it work upon matter, worketh according to the stuff; but if it work upon itself, as the spider worketh his web, then it is endless, and brings forth indeed cobwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning. . Matt: To understand/realise is to be distinguished from (I would argue) to comprehend statements. How long are we going to go round and round with this? How do you know if a machine comprehends something? Turing explained why he ducked the question in 1950. Because you really can't tell. http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial [Humor ] vs Real Approaches to Information
On Friday 12 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote: to understand a piece of information and its information objects, (eg words) , is to realise (or know) how they refer to real objects in the real world, (and, ideally, and often necessarily, to be able to point to and engage with those real objects). This is usually called sourcing and citations, and so on. It's not enough to have a citation though, it's not enough to just have a symbolic representation of some part of the world beyond you within your system, you always have to be able to functionally and competently use those references, citations, or links in some useful manner, otherwise you're not grounded and you're off in la-la land. Computers have offered us the chance to encapsulate and manage all of these citations (and so on) but in many cases they are citations that are limited and crude. Look at the difference between these two citations: Tseng, A. A., Notargiacomo A. Chen T. P. Nanofabrication by scanning probe microscope lithography: A review. J. Vac. Sci. Tech. B 23, 877– 894 (2005). Compared to: http://heybryan.org/graphene.html Both would seem cryptic to any outsider to scientific literature or to the web. The first one is generally variablized across the literature, making OCR very difficult, and making it generally a challenge to always fetch the citations and refs in papers for researchers. Take a look at my attempts at OCR of bibliographies: http://heybryan.org/projects/autoscholar/ Not good is an accurate summarization. With the HTTP string, it's not any better at all, *except* the fact that DNS servers are widely implemented, here's how to implement one, here's how the DNS root servers for the internet work, here's why you can (usually) type in any URL on the planet and get to the same site (unless you're on some other NIC of course - but this is very rare). There's a social context surprisingly involved for DNS .. which I guess is what you consider to be the realistics that everyone overlooks when they just assign symbols to many different things; for instance, I bet you don't know what DNS is, but you know what a dictionary is, even though they refer to more or less the same functional things (uh, sort of). Anyway, it's context that matters when it comes to groundtruthing citations and traces in information ecologies, and not so much the symbolic manipulation thereof. It's the overall groundtruthed process, the instantiated exploding von Neumann probe phylum that will ultimately (not) grey goo you. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt, What are you being so tetchy about? The issue is what it takes for any agent, human or machine.to understand information . How are you going to understand the issues behind programming a computer for human intelligence if you have never programmed a computer? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
Matt: How are you going to understand the issues behind programming a computer for human intelligence if you have never programmed a computer? Matt, We simply have a big difference of opinion. I'm saying there is no way a computer [or agent, period] can understand language if it can't basically identify/*see* (and sense) the real objects - (and therefore doesn't know what) - it's talking about. Hence people say when they understand at last - ah now I see.. now I see what you're talking about.. now I get the picture. The issue of what faculties are needed to understand language (and be intelligent) is not, *in the first instance,* a matter of programming. I suggest you may have been v. uncharacteristically short in this exchange, because you may not like the starkness of the message. It is stark, but I believe it's the truth. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial [Humor ] vs Real Approaches to Information
Mike, How will you understand, and recognize when information objects/ e.g language/words are unreal ? e.g. Turn yourself inside out. ... unreal/untrue/metaphorical in different and sometimes multiple simultaneous ways It's like teaching a baby. You don't want to use confusing language/metaphors.. I expect my users to understand the GIGO effect. But GINA (=my AGI experiment) does have some features for dealing with unreal / confusing concepts. As I mentioned before, it learns from stories (written in a formal language). Each story can be marked Real, Unreal, or Abstract. The Real means real world, the Unreal means fairy tale kind of stuff (animals talking etc), and the Abstract covers things like math and other very formal worlds (e.g. chess rules etc). When a user submits a problem-to-solve, he/she can also specify if the scope of the solution search should include the Unreal domain. Another relevant feature is support of phrase concepts. It allows to teach the system about the impact of saying something particular in particular scenarios (e.g. Good night, WTF, I love you, H or possibly your Turn yourself inside out). The description of what it literally means is optional (unlike the impact descriptions). There are also some automated evaluation procedures applied to new knowledge before it's approved as a knowledge useful for problem solving. Another thing is that the confusing input (assuming it will make it to the knowledge used for problem solving) will have the tendency to be eliminated because users will be rejecting solutions that were based on it. There is a lot more but I cannot explain it well in short. You might also ask yourself how you will, if your approach extends beyond language, know that any image or photo is unreal. GINA just stores URLs for images and users describe it using system's formal language (which I named GSL by the way - General Scripting Language). GINA deals with images in similar way as with above mentioned phrases. Regards, Jiri Jelinek --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Jiri Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without a body, you couldn't understand the joke. False. Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand 3D space ? It depends on what is meant by, and the value of, understand 3D space. If the intelligence needs to navigate or work with 3D space or even understand intelligence whose very concepts are filled with 3D metaphors, then I would think yes, that intelligence is going to need at least simulated detailed experience of 3D space. - samantha --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
I think it's the surprize that makes you laugh actually, not physical pain in other people. I find myself laughing at my own mistakes often - not because they hurt (in fact if they did hurt they wouldn't be funny) but because I get surprized by them. Valentina On 9/10/08, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without a body, you couldn't understand the joke. False. Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand 3D space ? BTW it's kind of sad that people find it funny when others get hurt. I wonder what are the mirror neurons doing at the time. Why so many kids like to watch the Tom Jerry-like crap? Jiri --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Samantha, Mike, Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand 3D space ? It depends on what is meant by, and the value of, understand 3D space. If the intelligence needs to navigate or work with 3D space or even understand intelligence whose very concepts are filled with 3D metaphors, then I would think yes, that intelligence is going to need at least simulated detailed experience of 3D space. If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). Jiri --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jiri Jelinek wrote: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). Surely the DARPA autonomous vehicles driving themselves around the desert and in traffic show that computers can cope quite well with a 3D environment, including other objects moving around them as well? BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to try and grasp the admittedly complicated more sophisticated reality? . Jiri: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Artificial humor
From: John LaMuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As I have previously written, this issue boils down as one is serious or one is not to be taken this way a meta-order perspective)... the key feature in humor and comedy -- the meta-message being don't take me seriously That is why I segregated analogical humor seperately (from routine seriousness) in my 2nd US patent 7236963 www.emotionchip.net This specialized meta-order-type of disqualification is built directly into the AGI schematics ... I realize that proprietary patents have acquired a bad cachet, but should not necessarily be ignored Nice patent. I can just imagine the look on the patent clerk's face when that one came across the desk. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. What about the programs that control Stanley and the other DARPA Grand Challenge vehicles? - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to try and grasp the admittedly complicated more sophisticated reality? . Jiri: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't represent a body and it can be added. Of course understanding all the real-world 3D concepts would take a lot more code and data than when playing with 3D toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to understand 3D without having a body. Jiri On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to try and grasp the admittedly complicated more sophisticated reality? . Jiri: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Jiri, Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - and also what is moving towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a mobile program) - and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a relatively simple such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously haven't thought about this in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details about how SHRDLU broke down. Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't represent a body and it can be added. Of course understanding all the real-world 3D concepts would take a lot more code and data than when playing with 3D toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to understand 3D without having a body. Jiri On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want to try and grasp the admittedly complicated more sophisticated reality? . Jiri: If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a body. I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate self with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? They are allowed to work by GPS but there are parts of the course where they are required to work without it. Shouldn't you already have basic knowledge like this before proclaiming things like neither do any others when talking about being able to understand any *general* concepts of orientation - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor Jiri, Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - and also what is moving towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a mobile program) - and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a relatively simple such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously haven't thought about this in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details about how SHRDLU broke down. Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't represent a body and it can be added. Of course understanding all the real-world 3D concepts would take a lot more code and data than when playing with 3D toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to understand 3D without having a body. Jiri On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently exists in splendid self-contained isolation. It's an illusion, and it just doesn't *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you want to cling to excessive optimism and a simple POV or do you want
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike, your argument would be on firmer ground if you could distinguish between when a computer understands something and when it just reacts as if it understands. What is the test? Otherwise, you could always claim that a machine doesn't understand anything because only humans can do that. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 1:31 PM Jiri, Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - and also what is moving towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a mobile program) - and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a relatively simple such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously haven't thought about this in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details about how SHRDLU broke down. Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note that the orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't represent a body and it can be added. Of course understanding all the real-world 3D concepts would take a lot more code and data than when playing with 3D toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to understand 3D without having a body. Jiri On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jiri, Quick answer because in rush. Notice your if ... Which programs actually do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly bet, didn't...and neither do any others. The v. word orientation indicates the reality that every picture has a point of view, and refers to an observer. And there is no physical way around that. You have been seduced by an illusion - the illusion of the flat, printed page, existing in a timeless space. And you have accepted implicitly that there really is such a world - flatland - where geometry and geometrical operations take place, utterly independent of you the viewer and puppeteer, and the solid world of real objects to which they refer. It demonstrably isn't true. Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in the world - your room, say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any of the objects in it. Triangular objects in the world are different from triangles on the page, fundamentally different. But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this illusion. You need to look at the history of culture and realise that the imposition on the world/ environment of first geometrical figures, and then, more than a thousand years later, the fixed point of view and projective geometry, were - and remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION. They don't exist, Jiri. They're just one of many possible frameworks (albeit v useful) to impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes couldn't conceive of squares and enclosed spaces. Future generations will invent new frameworks. Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. I didn't understand until yesterday what the introduction of a fixed point of view really meant - it was that word fixed. What was the big deal? I couldn't understand. Isn't it a fact of life, almost? Then it clicked. Your natural POV is mobile - your head/eyes keep moving - even when reading. It is an artificial invention to posit a fixed POV. And the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it is one-eyed, no?, not stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading pages/screens you come to assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative paper suggesting that the evolutionary brain's stabilisation of vision, (a software triumph because organisms are so mobile) may have led to the development of consciousness). You have to understand the difference between 1) the page, or medium, and 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the observer, reading/looking at the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page [or screen] that apparently
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Matt, Jeez, massive question :). Let me 1st partly dodge it, by giving you an example of the difficulty of understanding, say, over, both in NLP terms and ultimately (because it will be the same more or less) in practical object recognition/movement terms - because I suspect none of you have done what I told you, (naughty) looked at Lakoff. You will note the very different physical movements or positionings involved in: The painting is over the mantle The plane flew over the hill Sam walked over the hill Sam lives over the hill The wall fell over Sam turned the page over She spread the cloth over the table. The guards stood all over th ehill Look over my page He went over the horizon The line stretches over the yard The board is over the hole [not to mention] The play is over There are over a hundred Do it over, but don't overdo it. there are many more. See Lakoff for schema illustrations. Nearly all involve very different trajectories, physical relationships. That is why I'm confident that no program can handle that, but yes, Mark, I was putting forward a new idea (certainly to me) in the orientation framework - and doing no more than presenting a reasoned, but pretty ill-informed hypothesis. (And that is what I think this forum is for. And I will be delighted if you, or anyone else, will correct my overgeneralisations and errors). Now a brief, rushed but, I suspect, massive, and new answer to your question - that I think, takes us, philosophically, way beyond the concept of grounding, which a lot of people are currently using for understanding. To understand is to REALISE what [on earth, or in the [real] world] is being talked about. It is, in principle, and often in practice, to be able to go into the real world and point to the real objects/actions being referred to, (or realise that they are unreal/fantastic). So in terms of understanding a statement containing how something is over something else, it is to be able to go and point to the relevant objects in a scene, or, if possible, to recreate the physical events or relationship.. I believe that is actually how we *do* understand, how the brain does work, how a GI *must* work - , if correct, it automatically moves us beyond virtual AGI. I shall hopefully return to this concept on further occasions - I believe it has enormous ramifications. There are many, many qualifications to be made, which I won't attempt now, nevertheless the basic principle holds - and will hold for the psychology of how humans understand or *don't* understand or get confused. IOW not only must an AGI or any GI be embodied it must also be directly indirectly embedded in the world. (Grounding is being currently interpreted in practice almost entirely from the embodied or agent's side - as referring to what goes on *inside* the agent's mind. Realisation involves complementarily defining intelligence from the out-side of its ability to deal with the environment/real world being-referred-to. BIG difference. Like between just using nature/heredity, OTOH, and, OTOH, also using nurture/environment to explain behaviour). I hope you realise what I've been saying :). Matt: Mike, your argument would be on firmer ground if you could distinguish between when a computer understands something and when it just reacts as if it understands. What is the test? Otherwise, you could always claim that a machine doesn't understand anything because only humans can do that. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 1:31 PM Jiri, Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - and also what is moving towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a mobile program) - and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a relatively simple such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously haven't thought about this in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details about how SHRDLU broke down. Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those vehicles work by GPS? Mike, Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can answer question Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere? [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it demonstrates certain level of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no need to pass the orientation parameter to the query function. Note
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To understand is to REALISE what [on earth, or in the [real] world] is being talked about. Nice dodge. How do you distinguish between when a computer realizes something and when it just reacts as if it realizes it? Yeah, I know. Turing dodged the question too. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To understand is to REALISE what [on earth, or in the [real] world] is being talked about. Matt: Nice dodge. How do you distinguish between when a computer realizes something and when it just reacts as if it realizes it? Yeah, I know. Turing dodged the question too. Matt, I don't understand this objection - maybe I wasn't clear. I said to realise is to be able to go and point to the real objects/actions referred to, and to make the real actions happen. You understand what a key is if you can go and pick one up. You understand what picking up a key is, if you can do it. You understand what sex is, if you can point to it, or, better, do it, the scientific observers, or Turing testers, can observe it. As I said, there are many qualifications and complications - for example to understand what mind is, is also to be able to point to one in action, but it is a complex business on both sides [both mind and the pointing] - nevertheless if both fruitful scientific and philosophical discussion and discovery about the mind are to take place - that real engagement with real objects, is exactly what must happen there too. That is the basis of science (and technology). The only obvious places where understanding/ realisation, as defined here, *don't* happen - or *appear* not to happen - are - can you guess? - yes, logic and mathematics. And what are the subjects closest to the hearts of virtual AGI-ers? So you are generally intelligent if you can not just have a Turing test conversation with me about going and shopping in the supermarket, but actually go there and do it, per verbal instructions. Explain any dodge here. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
Matt, To understand/realise is to be distinguished from (I would argue) to comprehend statements. The one is to be able to point to the real objects referred to. The other is merely to be able to offer or find an alternative or dictionary definition of the statements. A translation. Like the Chinese room translator. Who is dealing in words, just words. Mere words. (I'm open to an alternative title for comprehend - if you find it in any way grates on you as a term, please say). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
- Original Message - From: John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:28 AM Subject: RE: [agi] Artificial humor From: John LaMuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As I have previously written, this issue boils down as one is serious or one is not to be taken this way a meta-order perspective)... the key feature in humor and comedy -- the meta-message being don't take me seriously That is why I segregated analogical humor seperately (from routine seriousness) in my 2nd US patent 7236963 www.emotionchip.net This specialized meta-order-type of disqualification is built directly into the AGI schematics ... I realize that proprietary patents have acquired a bad cachet, but should not necessarily be ignored Nice patent. I can just imagine the look on the patent clerk's face when that one came across the desk. John ## I can safely assume Joe Hirl was smiling about having his name forever attached to this PATENT FOR THE AGES ... (It did take over 3 months to pass) John L www.global-solutions.org --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Mike, The plane flew over the hill The play is over Using a formal language can help to avoid many of these issues. But then the program must be able to tell what is in what or outside, what is behind/over etc. The communication module in my experimental AGI design includes several specialized editors, one of which is a Space Editor which allows to use simple objects in a small nD sample-space to define the meaning of terms like in, outside, above, under etc. The goal is to define the meaning as simply as possible and the knowledge can then be used in more complex scenes generated for problem solving purposes. Other editors: Script Editor - for writing stories the system learns from. Action Concept Editor - for learning about actions/verbs related roles/phases/changes. Category Editor - for general categorization/grouping concepts. Formula Editor - math stuff. Interface Mapper - for teaching how to use tools (e.g. external software) ... Some of those editors (probably including the Space Editor) will be available only to privileged users. It's all RBAC-based. Only lightweight 3D imagination - for performance reasons (our brains cheat too), and no embodiment.. BTW I still have a lot to code before making the system publicly accessible. To understand is .. in principle, ..to be able to go into the real world and point to the real objects/actions being referred to.. Not from my perspective. I believe that is actually how we *do* understand, how the brain does work, how a GI *must* work It's ok (and often a must) to use different solutions when developing for different platforms. Planes don't flap wings. You understand what a key is if you can go and pick one up Again, AGI can know very little about particular objects and it can be enough to successfully solve many problems demonstrate useful level of concept understanding. Let's say the AGI works as an online adviser. For many key-involving problems it's good enough to know that a particular key object can be used to unlock/open another particular objects + the location info + sometimes the key color or so, but for example the exact shape of the key or the exact moves for opening a particular lock using the key - that's something this online AGI can in most cases leave to the user. The AGI should be able to learn details but there are so many details in the real world that, for practical reasons, the AGI would just need to filter most of it out. AGI doesn't need to interact with the real world directly in order to learn enough to be a helpful problem solver. And as long as it does a good job as a problem solver, who cares about the understanding vs reacting as if it understands classification.. Regards, Jiri Jelinek --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Matt: Humor detection obviously requires a sophisticated language model and knowledge of popular culture, current events, and what jokes have been told before. Since entertainment is a big sector of the economy, an AGI needs all human knowledge, not just knowledge that is work related. In many ways, it was brave of you to pursue this idea, the results are fascinating. You see, there is one central thing you need in order to write a joke. (Have you ever tried it? You must presumably in some respect). You can't just logically, formulaically analyse those jokes - the common ingredients of, say, the lightbulb jokes. When you write something - even some logical extension, say, re how many plumbers it takes to change a light bulb - the joke *has to strike you as funny. You have to laugh. It's the only way to test the joke. Obviously you have no plans for endowing your computer with a self and a body, that has emotions and can shake with laughter. Or tears. But what makes you laugh? The common ingredient of humour is human error. We laugh at humans making mistakes - mistakes that were/are preventable. People having their head stuck snootily in the air, and so falling on banana skins. Mrs Malaprop mispronouncing, misconstruing big words while trying to look clever, and refusing to admit her ignorance. And we laugh because we can personally identify, because we've made those kinds of mistakes. They are a fundamental and continuous part of our lives.(How will your AGI identify?) So are AGI-ers *heroic* figures trying to be/produce giants, or are they *comic* figures, like Don Quixote, who are in fact tilting at windmills, and refusing even to check whether those windmill arms actually belong to giants? There isn't a purely logicomathematical way to decide that. It takes an artistic as well as a scientific mentality involving not just whole different parts of your brain, but different faculties and sensibilities - all v. real, and not reducible to logic and maths. When you deal with AGI problems - like the problem of AGI itself - you need them. (You may think this all esoteric, but in fact, you need all those same faculties to understand everything that is precious to you - the universe/ world/ society/ atoms/ genes / machines - even logic maths. But more of that another time). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Obviously you have no plans for endowing your computer with a self and a body, that has emotions and can shake with laughter. Or tears. Actually, many of us do. And this is why your posts are so problematical. You invent what *we* believe and what we intend to do. And then you criticize your total fabrications (a.k.a. mental masturbation). - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor Matt: Humor detection obviously requires a sophisticated language model and knowledge of popular culture, current events, and what jokes have been told before. Since entertainment is a big sector of the economy, an AGI needs all human knowledge, not just knowledge that is work related. In many ways, it was brave of you to pursue this idea, the results are fascinating. You see, there is one central thing you need in order to write a joke. (Have you ever tried it? You must presumably in some respect). You can't just logically, formulaically analyse those jokes - the common ingredients of, say, the lightbulb jokes. When you write something - even some logical extension, say, re how many plumbers it takes to change a light bulb - the joke *has to strike you as funny. You have to laugh. It's the only way to test the joke. Obviously you have no plans for endowing your computer with a self and a body, that has emotions and can shake with laughter. Or tears. But what makes you laugh? The common ingredient of humour is human error. We laugh at humans making mistakes - mistakes that were/are preventable. People having their head stuck snootily in the air, and so falling on banana skins. Mrs Malaprop mispronouncing, misconstruing big words while trying to look clever, and refusing to admit her ignorance. And we laugh because we can personally identify, because we've made those kinds of mistakes. They are a fundamental and continuous part of our lives.(How will your AGI identify?) So are AGI-ers *heroic* figures trying to be/produce giants, or are they *comic* figures, like Don Quixote, who are in fact tilting at windmills, and refusing even to check whether those windmill arms actually belong to giants? There isn't a purely logicomathematical way to decide that. It takes an artistic as well as a scientific mentality involving not just whole different parts of your brain, but different faculties and sensibilities - all v. real, and not reducible to logic and maths. When you deal with AGI problems - like the problem of AGI itself - you need them. (You may think this all esoteric, but in fact, you need all those same faculties to understand everything that is precious to you - the universe/ world/ society/ atoms/ genes / machines - even logic maths. But more of that another time). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Obviously you have no plans for endowing your computer with a self and a body, that has emotions and can shake with laughter. Or tears. Actually, many of us do. And this is why your posts are so problematical. You invent what *we* believe and what we intend to do. And then you criticize your total fabrications (a.k.a. mental masturbation). You/others have plans for an *embodied* computer with the equivalent of an autonomic nervous systems and the relevant, attached internal organs? A robot? That's certainly news to me. Please expand. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
That's certainly news to me. Because you haven't been paying attention (or don't have the necessary background or desire to recognize it). Look at the attention that's been paid to the qualia and consciousness arguments (http://consc.net/online). Any computer with sensors and effectors is embodied. And IBM is even/already touting their Autonomic Computing initiatives (http://www.research.ibm.com/autonomic/). Computers already divide tasks into foreground (conscious) and background (unconscious) processes that are *normally* loosely-coupled with internal details encapsulated away from each other. Silicon intelligences aren't going to have human internal organs (except, maybe, as part of a project to simulate/study humans) but they're certainly going to have a sense of humor -- and while they are not going to have the evolved *physical* side-effects, it's going to feel like something to them. Your arguments are very short-sighted and narrow and nitpicking minor *current* details while missing the sweeping scope of what is not only being proposed but actually moving forward around you. Stop telling us what we think because you're getting it *WRONG*. Stop telling us what we're missing because, in most cases, we're actually paying attention to version 3 of what you're talking about and you just don't recognize it. You're looking at the blueprints of F-14 Tomcat and arguing that the wings don't move right for a bird and, besides, it's too unstable for a human to fly (unassisted :-). Read the papers in the first link and *maybe* we can have a useful conversation . . . . - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:41 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor Obviously you have no plans for endowing your computer with a self and a body, that has emotions and can shake with laughter. Or tears. Actually, many of us do. And this is why your posts are so problematical. You invent what *we* believe and what we intend to do. And then you criticize your total fabrications (a.k.a. mental masturbation). You/others have plans for an *embodied* computer with the equivalent of an autonomic nervous systems and the relevant, attached internal organs? A robot? That's certainly news to me. Please expand. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Your response makes my point precisely . . . . Until you truly understand *why* IBM's top engineers believes that autonomic is the correct term (and it's very clear to someone with enough background and knowledge that it is), you shouldn't be attempting this discussion. Yes, *in CURRENT detail*, autonomic computing is different from the human body -- especially since the computer is much more equivalent to the brain with much of the rest of the body corresponding to the power grid and whatever sensors, effectors, and locomotive devices the computer controls. Where the rest of the body differs is in the fact that a lot of the smarts, that lie in the computer in the artificial case, are actually physically embedded in the organs in the physical case. Look at the amount of nervous tissue in the digestive system. Guess why the digestive system is so tied into your emotions. But the fact that the computer doesn't replicate the inefficient idiosyncrasies of the human body is a good thing, not something to emulate. Further, when you say things like There is no computer or robot that keeps getting physically excited or depressed by its computations. (But it would be a good idea). you don't even realize that laptops (and many other computers -- not to mention appliances) currently do precisely what you claim that no computer or robot does. When they compute that they are not being used, they start shutting down power usage. Do you really want to continue claiming this? The vast majority of this mailing list is going over your head because you don't recognize that while the details are different (like the autonomic case), the general idea and direction are dead on and way past where you're languishing in your freezing cave bleating because a heat pump isn't fire. (I also suspect that you've missed most of the humor in this and the previous message) ((I feel like a villain in a cheesy drama -- helplessly trapped into monologue when I know it will do no good)) - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor 1.Autonomic [disembodied] computing is obviously radically different from having a body with a sympathetically controlled engine area (upper body) and parasympatheticaly controlled digestive area (lower body) which are continually being emotionally revved up or down in preparation for action, and also in continuous conflict. There is no computer or robot that keeps getting phsyically excited or depressed by its computations. (But it would be a good idea). 2.Mimicking emotions as some robots do, is similarly v. different from having the physical capacity to embody them, and experience them. 3.Silicon intelligences - useful distinction - don't feel anything - they don't have an organic nervous system, and of course it's still a fascinating question as to what extent feeling (the hard problem) is contained in that system. (Again true feelings for AGI's would be a wonderful, perhaps essential idea). 4.To have a sense of humour, as I more or less indicated, you have to be able to identify with the funny guy making the error - and that is an *embodied* identification. The humour that gets the biggest, most physical laughs and even has you falling on the floor, usually involves the biggest, most physical errors - e.g. slapstick. There are no plans that I know of, to have computers falling about. 5.Over and over, AI/AGI are making the same mistake - trying to copy/emulate human faculties and refusing to acknowledge that they are vastly more complex than AI'ers' construction. AI'ers attempts are valuable and productive, but their refusal to acknowledge the complexity of - and to respect the billion years of evolution behind - those faculties, tend towards the comical. Rather like the chauffeur in High Anxiety who keeps struggling to carry a suitcase, I got it.. I got it.. I got it. I ain't got it. 6.I would argue that it is AGI-ers who are focussed on the blueprints of their machine, and who repeatedly refuse to contemplate or discuss how it will fly, ( I seem to recall you making a similar criticism). Because you haven't been paying attention (or don't have the necessary background or desire to recognize it). Look at the attention that's been paid to the qualia and consciousness arguments (http://consc.net/online). Any computer with sensors and effectors is embodied. And IBM is even/already touting their Autonomic Computing initiatives (http://www.research.ibm.com/autonomic/). Computers already divide tasks into foreground (conscious) and background (unconscious) processes that are *normally* loosely-coupled with internal details encapsulated away from each other. Silicon intelligences aren't going to have human internal organs (except, maybe, as part of a project to simulate/study humans
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
There is no computer or robot that keeps getting physically excited or depressed by its computations. (But it would be a good idea). you don't even realize that laptops (and many other computers -- not to mention appliances) currently do precisely what you claim that no computer or robot does. Emotional laptops, huh? Sounds like a great story idea for kids learning to love their laptops. Pixar needs you. [It hasn't crashed, it's just v. depressed]. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
--- On Wed, 9/10/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4.To have a sense of humour, as I more or less indicated, you have to be able to identify with the funny guy making the error - and that is an *embodied* identification. The humour that gets the biggest, most physical laughs and even has you falling on the floor, usually involves the biggest, most physical errors - e.g. slapstick. There are no plans that I know of, to have computers falling about. No, the computer's task is to recognize humor, not to experience it. You only have to model the part of the brain that sends the signal to your pleasure center. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Couldn't one use fine-grained collision detection in something like OpenSim to feed tactile information into a neural net via a simulated nervous system? The extent to which a simulated organism 'actually feels' is certainly a point on a scale or a spectrum, just as it would appear to be with carbon-based organisms on Earth as they progress up from monocellular to higher life. If sufficient computing power were brought to bear then perhaps an electronic organism could have arbitrarily complex, rich interactions with its environment. A nervous system with n tens of thousands of inputs seems to be a prerequisite, but I don't know if it could be said to be doing anything significant with them unless a proportionately huge computing layer were on the back end. All the tactile inputs would mandate a massive neural net, I think. Pixel input for stereo visual fields alone consitutes a huge number of inputs for any neural net to have. In a symbolically-based system you could have layers of computer vision producing abstractions and constructions for consciousness, but with a neural net, which seems like the natural backend to a nervous system, this is less straightforward. The problem seems to be twofold: producing feedback on avatar-environment interactions with sufficient resolution in the front end, and processing it usefully on the back. By sufficient resolution I'm thinking of collision detection that could activate as appropriate tens or hundreds of thousands of sensors constituting sensory streams for an electronic self, thus providing a richly compelling idea of being embedded in its environment. Work like that being done on algorithmic implementations of neuron column function at IBM might prove to be the ideal computing layer for this kind of VR embodiment, in order to enable the debate about what goes on in the electronic substrate and whether or not it constitutes 'really feeling' or indeed really doing anything. Eric B On 9/10/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Emotional laptops, huh? Sounds like a great story idea for kids learning to love their laptops. Pixar needs you. [It hasn't crashed, it's just v. depressed]. Great response. Ignore my correct point with deflecting derision directed at a strawman (the last refuge of the incompetent). You seem more intent on winning an argument than learning or even honestly addressing the points that you yourself raised. I'll let you go back to your fantasies of being smarter than the rest of us now. - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor There is no computer or robot that keeps getting physically excited or depressed by its computations. (But it would be a good idea). you don't even realize that laptops (and many other computers -- not to mention appliances) currently do precisely what you claim that no computer or robot does. Emotional laptops, huh? Sounds like a great story idea for kids learning to love their laptops. Pixar needs you. [It hasn't crashed, it's just v. depressed]. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
I've seen humour modelled as a form of mental dissonance, when an expectation is defied, especially a grave one. It may arise, then, as a higher-order recognition of bizarreness in the overall state of the mind at that point. Humour seems to me to be somehow fundamental to intelligence, rather than originating from a given faculty. On 9/10/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4.To have a sense of humour, as I more or less indicated, you have to be able to identify with the funny guy making the error - and that is an *embodied* identification. The humour that gets the biggest, most physical laughs and even has you falling on the floor, usually involves the biggest, most physical errors - e.g. slapstick. There are no plans that I know of, to have computers falling about. No, the computer's task is to recognize humor, not to experience it. You only have to model the part of the brain that sends the signal to your pleasure center. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Here is an example I recall. A vine crosses your path and you think there is a snake on your foot. Then you realize the nature of the vine but the systemic effects of snake fear do not immediately subside. The result is calming laughter. Perhaps, then, it's an evolved compensation mechanism for biochemical states revealed intellectually as inappropriate? A deep subject! On 9/10/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've seen humour modelled as a form of mental dissonance, when an expectation is defied, especially a grave one. It may arise, then, as a higher-order recognition of bizarreness in the overall state of the mind at that point. Humour seems to me to be somehow fundamental to intelligence, rather than originating from a given faculty. On 9/10/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4.To have a sense of humour, as I more or less indicated, you have to be able to identify with the funny guy making the error - and that is an *embodied* identification. The humour that gets the biggest, most physical laughs and even has you falling on the floor, usually involves the biggest, most physical errors - e.g. slapstick. There are no plans that I know of, to have computers falling about. No, the computer's task is to recognize humor, not to experience it. You only have to model the part of the brain that sends the signal to your pleasure center. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without a body, you couldn't understand the joke. False. Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand 3D space ? BTW it's kind of sad that people find it funny when others get hurt. I wonder what are the mirror neurons doing at the time. Why so many kids like to watch the Tom Jerry-like crap? Jiri --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
I think artificial humor has gotten little attention because humor (along with art and emotion) is mostly a right-brain activity, while science, math, and language are mostly left-brained. It should be no surprise that since most AI researches are left-brained, their interest is in studying problems that the left brain solves. Studying humor would be like me trying to write a Russian-Chinese translator without knowing either language. It could be done, but I would have to study how other people think without introspecting on my own mind. It seems little research has been done in spite of the huge economic potential for AI. For example, we know that most of what we laugh at is ordinary conversation rather than jokes, that some animals laugh, and that infants laugh at 3.5 to 4 months (before learning language). It is not clear why laughter (the involuntary response) or the desire to laugh evolved. How does it increases fitness? http://men.webmd.com/features/why-do-we-laugh http://www.livescience.com/animals/050331_laughter_ancient.html Nevertheless, the brain computes it, so there is no reason in principle why a computer could not. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Matt As I have previously written, this issue boils down as one is serious or one is not to be taken this way a meta-order perspective)... the key feature in humor and comedy -- the meta-message being don't take me seriously That is why I segregated analogical humor seperately (from routine seriousness) in my 2nd US patent 7236963 www.emotionchip.net This specialized meta-order-type of disqualification is built directly into the AGI schematics ... I realize that proprietary patents have acquired a bad cachet, but should not necessarily be ignored John LaMuth www.ethicalvalues.com - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor I think artificial humor has gotten little attention because humor (along with art and emotion) is mostly a right-brain activity, while science, math, and language are mostly left-brained. It should be no surprise that since most AI researches are left-brained, their interest is in studying problems that the left brain solves. Studying humor would be like me trying to write a Russian-Chinese translator without knowing either language. It could be done, but I would have to study how other people think without introspecting on my own mind. It seems little research has been done in spite of the huge economic potential for AI. For example, we know that most of what we laugh at is ordinary conversation rather than jokes, that some animals laugh, and that infants laugh at 3.5 to 4 months (before learning language). It is not clear why laughter (the involuntary response) or the desire to laugh evolved. How does it increases fitness? http://men.webmd.com/features/why-do-we-laugh http://www.livescience.com/animals/050331_laughter_ancient.html Nevertheless, the brain computes it, so there is no reason in principle why a computer could not. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
The most plausible explanation I've heard is that humor evolved as a social weapon for use by a group of low status individuals against a high status individual. This explains why laughter is involuntarily contagious, why it mostly occurs in conversation, why children like watching Tom and Jerry and why it's always Tom rather than Jerry who takes the fall. The snake vine scenario is a derived application, based on the general idea of something that had appeared badass, turning out to not need to be taken seriously. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Matt, Humor is dependent not on inductive reasoning by association, reversed or otherwise, but on the crossing of whole matrices/ spaces/ scripts .. and that good old AGI standby, domains. See Koestler esp. for how it's one version of all creativity - http://www.casbs.org/~turner/art/deacon_images/index.html Solve humor and you solve AGI. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
