Mark, On 4/13/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Most people haven't a clue what it takes to make real-time AI really > work. > > Wow. I'm really unimpressed. >
Perhaps you can relate your own experiences in this area. First off, your list of kludges that *you* have to go through to make > *your* program work is truly frightening. > Yes, I agree. You are obviously very invested in the idea that you are much smarter than > the entire rest of the software industry. > No, I was only pointing out that once you take something like speech-to-text and try to embed it into a REAL-TIME AI application, that unexpected problems crop up that the original designers never did consider, and STILL haven't considered. Also, that paper is now 2 years old and RAMs are now much larger, so things have changed a bit. Most people would assumMark,e that newer versions of software are generally > better (except for too many added features). > Yes, I agree, as I also initially made that same assumption. Good thing that you're smarter than that and know how to trash a machine so > your stuff will work. > Given that apparently no one else has been able to make commercial speech-to-text work with real-time AI, I'll accept that as a complement. However... It is unclear what happened for you to make your comments in the tone that you used. On first glance it appears that you simply didn't carefully read the article. For example, did you notice that Nuance actually has a patent on how they suck up 100.0% of the CPU, leaving nothing for concurrent AI programs? How about constructively addressing the technical ISSUES instead of sounding like an idiot by making snide comments. > > >> Then there is the fact that Dr. Eliza operates according to principles > that aren't taught in any school and would be unfamiliar without some > external education. > > Sounds like voodoo to me -- unless you have all this stuff written up so > that you can provide this education (and the education can be validated). > Didn't think so. > Perhaps you missed the fact that I already posted that I have several articles that I would gladly send to anyone who requested them. However, there ARE limits to just how much can be packed into a published article. One of them even secured special permission to exceed the maximum length limit, when the WORLDCOMP conference committee couldn't suggest ANY part of it that could be omitted without damaging the rest of it. > > >> Hence, I see a LOT of frustration and probably no benefit from such a > posting. > > Or a LOT of laughter and no benefit to you. ;-) > I am new here, having only made one posting and answered queries to that posting. However, if this were MY group, I would remove you as a member for making such snide comments rather than simply explaining your issues and asking for anything you see is missing, like explanatory articles. People working in AI/AGI get LOTS of derision from the rest of CS (and you certainly sound like you come from that extraction) and we certainly don't need any more here, on what should be a safe forum to express our ideas. Ben Goertzel, are you awake here? This one is in YOUR court. Steve Richfield ================ > > -- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:12 PM > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Comments from a lurker... > > > Mark, > > On 4/12/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So . . . . are you willing to immediately release your current Dr. > > Eliza code to Open Source and let us see it and help humanity together? > > > > Most people haven't a clue what it takes to make real-time AI really work. > I have attached an article that explains some of it. You must first remove a > lot of problematical software from a new target computer, install a bunch of > "obsolete" versions of software, go through ~2 hours of install process, and > often spend another couple of hours (and sometimes a couple of days) making > small code changes to deal with some new environmental factor, e.g. an > unfamiliar version of Windows. > > Then there is the fact that Dr. Eliza operates according to principles > that aren't taught in any school and would be unfamiliar without some > external education. The way that I show its operation in person, is to call > up the "maintenance panel" and start explaining how the dozens of tables > work together to make it all work. Sometimes I make small changes to > demonstrate resulting changes in operation. There are ~100K lines of code to > do NOTHING other than what the tables tell it to do, and sweep the > irregularities of all underlying systems "under the rug". When you > understand the tables, you then understand Dr. Eliza. Without that > understanding, the code would be meaningless; and with that understanding, > the code would be redundant. To illustrate, a friend made much of it work in > German, including things that are uniquely German like run-on words, by > simply making appropriate table entries. > > Hence, I see a LOT of frustration and probably no benefit from such a > posting. > > Steve Richfield > ================ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Sent:* Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:53 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Comments from a lurker... > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > On 4/11/08, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hence, simulational System Dynamics must be confined to systems > > > whose > > > > operation can be observed or instrumented. Unfortunately, this lets > > > out most > > > > of the REALLY important real-world problems, especially medicine, > > > from > > > > simulated solution. That reasoning new cures for medical conditions > > > that are > > > > unknown to the computer at once appears to be SO difficult, yet is > > > > relatively easy given the right approach, is why I/we chose chronic > > > illness, > > > > the hardest part of medicine, as our demo. > > > > > > > > > > Why does it follow? There is only a difference of degree. If you've > > > got a messy real-world problem, you know little, if you have an > > > algorithm giving the solution, you know all. The trick is to be able > > > to benefit from many intermediate grades of specification. > > > > > > This has two different answers: > > > > #1: When your doctor has just told you that you have something incurable > > (I have been there) is a really bad time to start a large research project, > > ESPECIALLY when the answers are already out there, but in small fragments > > that must be strung together. My own illness took me 4 months to locate the > > pieces and string them together. This should have only taken a few minutes > > with something like Dr. Eliza. Why bother simulating something when the > > research has already been done? > > > > #2: The entire world is working on thousands of important research > > problems. Yes, you CAN apply SD principles and develop a simulation that may > > help with one of those problems, despite its imperfections. Many of the > > millions of people in the world are applying SD principles to the thousands > > of problems right now. Yes, anything that can help with such efforts would > > be very useful, however... > > > > A machine that tracks what EVERYONE is doing, collects the fragments of > > wisdom that come from every project and has the entire world's wisdom to > > apply to ANY stated problem, whether or not the person stating the problem > > has any clue at all what lies inside the computer or what to ask. THAT would > > be thousands of times more valuable than any one SD tool, however successful > > it might be. THAT is what Dr. Eliza was designed to do. > > > > YES, something like Dr. Eliza would be more powerful if people had > > better SD and other tools to perform their research. As things now stand, > > the Internet is only a library with absolutely NO ability to take fragments > > from here and there and string them all together to solve a problem. Dr. > > Eliza's methods makes the information ACTIVE and able to interrelate. > > > > I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from developing better research > > tools. However, the vast majority of existing research is presently > > inaccessible unless you know exactly what to ask for, and adding more to > > this inaccessible lot seems to me to be of diminishing value until something > > like Dr. Eliza is on everyone's desktop to string the bits of wisdom > > together to solve everyone's real-world problems. THEN would be a good time > > to switch efforts as you suggest, when the tools are in place to fully > > utilize the sorts of things that you are looking to develop. > > > > Steve Richfield > > > > ------------------------------ > > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > > > ------------------------------ > > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
