> HAL believes the following statement is FALSE: I think this will be better phrased as:
HAL does NOT believe: In general we've got to work hard, especially in a proof of concept prototype, to make the text as simple and clear as possible, to normal users. -------------- To that goal, I propose a New Idea (as if we need any more! But this one's good! :) Do it as a cartoon panel. First: "Water is lighter than air" Then a GIF animation of HAL looking at this fretfully, and shaking his head "no" Then two buttons: a hammer and a kiss. If you click the hammer, a huge cartoon hammer bonks HAL on the head. He looks alarmed, then says (in a cartoon text bubble) "thanks, I needed that!" The kiss button, causes a lipstick print on HAL's cheek. He grins. I'll ask the www.dieselsweeties.com artist to make us the graphics for free. -Josh > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of William L. Jarrold > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:53 PM > To: Joshua N Pritikin > Cc: 'Open Heart Logic, dev mailing list' > Subject: RE: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype > > > > > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 10:50 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 02:02 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > >>>> Jesus loves his father. [q] > >>>> > >>>> ...and then later, they can click on this and see why. > I.e. they > >>>> would see the premises which were: > >>>> > >>>> Sons love their fathers. [p1] > >>>> Jesus is God's son. [p2] > >>> > >>> Hrm, do you want to do this (click to see reasons) for the pilot? > >> > >> Yes, the would be my moderately strong preference. > >> > >> We must remember that we are building a platform for doing > all sortsa > >> experiments. > > > > OK. > > > > The web interface is easy, but we have to load the data into the > > database. In what scriptable format do you want to provide this > > information? > > By data, I assume you mean the content of the items, right? > > (Here is where I be comin' from: I usually think of data as > somethign that > we scientist collect rather than put in our experimental apparatus.) > > So, assuming I am correct, I would like to defer on this > until we nail > down design issues such as the look and feel of the > interface, the nature > of the reversed, or mutated etc type items. > > BUT, enough with my ceaseless procrastination!!!, here is a > rough stab. > > For each item there will be... > > a) an item id > > b) THING-TO-RATE: a hunk of html text that when plugged into > your doodad is the thing that they will be rating. > > c) BACKGROUND: another hunk of html text that will be > viewable if the participant wants to see where b) came from. > (this would contain info like "This item was reversed. Click > here to see what we mean by reversed." or "This item was > actually a deduction that HAL made after doing some thinking. > This is the chain of deductions that HAL made in order to > come up with that deduction." > > ...in the beginning we will hand craft b) and c). In our stary-eyed > futures we will have a program generate b) and c) based on > the output of an AI (such as Cyc or KM plus its CLib). > > ...Also I hope you can do this so that we can add more fields > beyond a, b > and c if we need to. Is that posssible? > > Also, the item id should encode what condition the item was > in. E.g. (i) was > it a deduction or a ground fact? (ii) Was it from Cyc or KM? > (iii) Was > it reversed or unreversed?....Hrm, perhaps the better idea is > to leave the > item id be any unique char string and have other fields for > (i), (ii), > (iii). Well, Joshua, you are the programer dude. Your call. > > > > >>> Hrm, instead of telling me which items you want, why not > just modify > >>> the attached script? > >> > >> Sure, will do, but not right now. > > > > One more question, for the reversed items do we tell people > after they > > rate the item? > > Yes. (As a parity check I will restate wha is hopefully obvious) We > definitely would *not* tell them before they rate it that it > is reversd. > If we did tell them before, this would tip them off that they > should rate > it unbelievable. > > > For example: > > > > HAL believes the following statement is FALSE: > > > > Water is lighter than air. > > > > Most experts agree that this statement is highly unbelievable. > > Minor point: I would phrase this as "HAL thinks" rather than "Most > experts agree." > > > > > If you want it to look like this then we need to store a flag > > somewhere indicating that the assertion is reversed. Hrm. > I'll think > > about it. > > Maybe. I was thinking that the "This item is reversed" clue > would be stored in "c) BACKGROUND:". > > But as I alluded above, we might not want to overload the > item id and thus there are other reasons to have a field > include whether the item is reversed or unervrsed or who-knows-what. > > Bill > > > > > -- > > If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org > > (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Heartlogic-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev > _______________________________________________ Heartlogic-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev
