I assumed it was showing progress, not a form of "trolling." Your work, while immensely difficult for me to understand (as I’ve privately discussed) is still nonetheless fascinating from afar. Keep it up!
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:30 AM, A.T. Murray via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 10:24 PM, MP via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What’s going to be done to fix this issue? > > The issue (of generating "THINK" from normal activation rather than from > SpreadAct() activation) has been fixed by the indicated "bugfix" to the > SpreadAct() module, namely by restoring the missing "psyExam" line of code > that was rendering SpreadAct() ineffective. > Btw (by the way), I post these quasi-lab-notes here not to troll the list, > but rather to show the work that I am accomplishing. > Arthur > >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:21 AM, A.T. Murray via AGI <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> We have a problem where the AI Mind is calling Indicative() two times in a >>> row for no good reason. After a what-think query, the AI is supposed to >>> call Indicative() a first time, then ConJoin(), and then Indicative() >>> again. We could make the governance depend upon either the 840=THINK verb >>> or upon the conj-flag from the ConJoin() module, which, however, is not set >>> positive until control flows the first time through the Indicative() >>> module. Although we have been setting conj back to zero at the end of >>> ConJoin(), we could delay the resetting in order to use conjas a >>> control-flag for whether or not to generate thought-clauses joined by one >>> or more conjunctions. Such a method shifts the problem back to the >>> ConJoin() module, which will probably have to check conceptual memory for >>> how many ideas have high activation above a certain threshold for >>> warranting the use of a conjunction. Accordingly we go into the Table of >>> Variables webpage and we write a description of conj as a two-purpose >>> variable. Then we need to decide where to reset conj back to zero, if not >>> at the end of Indicative(). We move the zero-reset of conjfrom ConJoin() to >>> the EnThink() module, and we stop getting more than one call to >>> Indicative() in normal circumstances. However, when we input a what-query, >>> which sets the whatcon variable to a positive one, we encounter problems. >>> Suddenly it looks as though answers to a what-think query have been coming >>> not from SpreadAct(), but simply from the activation of the 840=THINK >>> concept. It turns out that a line of "psyExam" code was missing from a >>> SpreadAct() search-loop, with the result that no engrams were being found >>> or activated -- which activation is the main job of the SpreadAct() module. >>> >>> -- >>> http://ai.neocities.org/AiMind.html >>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0595654371 >>> http://cyborg.blogspot.com/2018/06/jmpj0603.html >>> http://github.com/BuildingXwithJS/proposals/issues/22 > > [Artificial General Intelligence List](https://agi.topicbox.com/latest) / AGI > / see [discussions](https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi) + > [participants](https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members) + [delivery > options](https://agi.topicbox.com/groups) > [Permalink](https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7d4ef049c1079ece-M968094292c1b5a47a52fd899) ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7d4ef049c1079ece-M9a65aae9d1b02bf95a4b9fce Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups
