[agi] MindForth AI updated 27.DEC.2007
Mind.Forth Programming Journal (MFPJ) Thurs.27.DEC.2007 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/win32forth/message/13076 In Mind.Forth artificial intelligence for robots, as we try to make the AI Mind balk at thinking a thought for which it has insufficent knowledge, we need to coordinate a drastic reduction of post-thought activation of concepts in the psiDamp mind-module with a testing for too little activation on candidate-verbs in the verbPhrase module. The psiDamp module must make sure that conceptual activations are low -- but not too low for a meandering chain of thought to snake its way through the knowledge base (KB) blanketing the mindgrid. In the verbPhrase module, the "detour" variable must abort and force into detour any incipient thought for which all candidate verbs have too low an activation for a KB-compatible thought to arise. Human input of a new word properly used as a direct object should not permit the AI to use the same word as the subject of a nonsense statement connecting the new word with some inappropriate verb that chances to have a modicum of conceptual activation. Instead, verbPhrase should reject low-activation verbs and detour the AI Mind into asking a question, or making a self-referential EGO-module statement, or finding something else to think about in a thought-engendering traversal of the AI knowledge base. In the verbPhrase module we try using the following code. act @ 13 < IF \ Detour away from selecting a low-activation verb. 1 detour ! \ 27dec2007 Set the detour flag to 1-as-true. fyi @ 2 = IF \ 27dec2007 In Tutorial mode show any detour taken. CR ." verbPhr: detouring when verb-activation is only " act @ . THEN \ 27dec2007 End of test for Tutorial mode LEAVE \ 27dec2007 Stop low-activation verb before SPEECH. THEN \ 27dec2007 End of test for verb with activation too low. There seems to be a problem with too high an activation being set when the human user enters a new word as input. For example, after "FISH EAT BUGS" is said by the robot looping through a chain of thoughts, the human user types in "fish eat eggs" and waits for a response. After a line of diagnostic code reveals "verbPhr: act = 24" the AI Mind incorrectly utters the thought "EGGS EAT EGGS" in response, because at twenty-four (24) the activation on the EAT verb was too high to fail the "detour" test that would have aborted the incipient nonsense-thought of "EGGS EAT EGGS". Luckily, however, we know that human user input has a cognitive privilege of leaving relatively high activation on words contained in the input stream, so that the AI Mind will pay attention to user input and generate a response. There may be a problem in the Audition mind-module, where the following code reveals a high setting on "actset" -- the variable used to decrement input activation in such a way that subject, verb and object have descending activations. \ 31 actset ! \ 1apr2007 From JSAI CR() module. 27 actset ! \ 4apr2007 Aiming for a wider S-V-O gap. 1 lastword ! \ 3apr2007 To reset "seq" tag The above code may explain why there was so high an activation as twenty-four (24) on the verb "EAT" in our Mind.Forth Programming Journal (MFPJ) entry of 19.DEC.2007. We have an opportunity now to lower the initial actset value at the end of the enBoot module and the "actset" used in the Audition module. By lowering the "actset" values gradually, we may observe any drastic changes in AI mind functionality. Meanwhile the AI Mind is continuing its "shakedown cruise" as it becomes better and better at maintaining meandering chains of thought. Values and settings which interfere with chains of thought are gradually being adjusted into relative harmony in a search for ideal rather than merely adequate settings. In verbPhrase we have changed important code as follows. \ motjuste @ 0 = IF 7 EMIT THEN \ 3apr2007 A test. \ motjuste @ 0 = IF 7 EMIT THEN \ 27dec2007 Commenting out above. motjuste @ 0 = IF \ 27dec2007 1 detour ! \ 27dec2007 Set the detour flag to 1-as-true. fyi @ 2 = IF \ 27dec2007 In Tutorial mode show any detour taken. CR ." verbPhr: detouring when no candidate-verb is found. THEN \ 27dec2007 End of test for Tutorial mode LEAVE \ 27dec2007 Go back up to any calling module. e.g., SVO. THEN \ 27dec2007 End of test for no candidate verb found. It is time to upload our code for release on the Web, because we have implemented the detour-trigger in the verbPhrase module, as indicated in the MindForth changelog. \ 17dec07A.F introduces "detour" as abort-flag for insufficient knowledge. \ 19dec07A.F flushes out verb-activation-too-high and BIRDS-as-IS bugs. \ 23dec07B.F solves aboriginal audRecog false-positive recognition bug. \ 27dec07A.F causes verbPhrase to LEAVE when a detour-condition is met. Although we have not coded SVO to "detour" into
[agi]
"OpenCog: A Software Framework for Integrative Artificial General Intelligence" by Dave Hart and Ben Goertzel says "Contingent upon funding for OpenCog proceeding as planned, we are targeting 1H08 for our first official code release, to be accompanied by a full complement of documentation, tools, and development support" Is there any show of support from people on the AGI and OpenCog lists that might help the funding effort, such as making small contributions or writing emails to any of the major potential contributors, that might help persuade them of the need, importance, and desire in the AGI community for this effort? Ed Porter - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=79681929-72445f
[agi] OpenCog
Ed Porter wrote: "OpenCog: A Software Framework for Integrative Artificial General Intelligence" by Dave Hart and Ben Goertzel says "Contingent upon funding for OpenCog proceeding as planned, we are targeting 1H08 for our first official code release, to be accompanied by a full complement of documentation, tools, and development support" Is there any show of support from people on the AGI and OpenCog lists that might help the funding effort, such as making small contributions or writing emails to any of the major potential contributors, that might help persuade them of the need, importance, and desire in the AGI community for this effort? I am sorry, but I have reservations about the OpenCog project. The problem of building an open-source AI needs a framework-level tool that is specifically designed to allow a wide variety of architectures to be described and expressed. OpenCog, as far as I can see, does not do this, but instead takes a particular assortment of mechanisms as its core, then suggests that people add modules onto this core. This is not a framework-level approach, but a particular-system approach that locks all future work into the limitations of the initial core. For example, I have many, many AGI designs that I need to explore, but as far as I can see, none of them can be implemented at all within the OpenCog system. I would have to rewrite OpenCog completely to get it to meet my needs. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=79717094-f5ac94
RE: [agi] OpenCog
Richard, You are entitled to your reservations about OpenCog, but others, like me, are entitled to our enthusiasms about it. You are correct that OpenCog starts with a certain approach, but I think it is an approach that has a lot of promise, and if it has fatal limitations, hopefully OpenCog will help us learn about them, so either the system can be improved, or replaced by a better approach. If you have another approach, I wish you good luck with it. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:19 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: [agi] OpenCog Ed Porter wrote: > "OpenCog: A Software Framework for Integrative Artificial General > Intelligence" by Dave Hart and Ben Goertzel says > > "Contingent upon funding for OpenCog proceeding as planned, we are > targeting 1H08 for our first official code release, to be accompanied by > a full complement of documentation, tools, and development support" > > Is there any show of support from people on the AGI and OpenCog lists > that might help the funding effort, such as making small contributions > or writing emails to any of the major potential contributors, that might > help persuade them of the need, importance, and desire in the AGI > community for this effort? I am sorry, but I have reservations about the OpenCog project. The problem of building an open-source AI needs a framework-level tool that is specifically designed to allow a wide variety of architectures to be described and expressed. OpenCog, as far as I can see, does not do this, but instead takes a particular assortment of mechanisms as its core, then suggests that people add modules onto this core. This is not a framework-level approach, but a particular-system approach that locks all future work into the limitations of the initial core. For example, I have many, many AGI designs that I need to explore, but as far as I can see, none of them can be implemented at all within the OpenCog system. I would have to rewrite OpenCog completely to get it to meet my needs. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=79755652-91da20<>
Re: [agi] OpenCog
Loosemore wrote: > I am sorry, but I have reservations about the OpenCog project. > > The problem of building an open-source AI needs a framework-level tool > that is specifically designed to allow a wide variety of architectures > to be described and expressed. > > OpenCog, as far as I can see, does not do this, but instead takes a > particular assortment of mechanisms as its core, then suggests that > people add modules onto this core. This is not a framework-level > approach, but a particular-system approach that locks all future work > into the limitations of the initial core. > > For example, I have many, many AGI designs that I need to explore, but > as far as I can see, none of them can be implemented at all within the > OpenCog system. I would have to rewrite OpenCog completely to get it to > meet my needs. Hi Richard, To be sure, OpenCog is not intended to be equally useful for all possible AGI approaches. To provide something equally useful for all AGI approaches, one would need to make something extremely broad -- basically, one would need to make a highly general-purpose operating-system and/or programming-language, rather than a specific software framework. OpenCog is designed to support a certain family of AGI designs, but is not designed to conveniently support all possible AGI designs. Definitely, there is room in the world for more than one AGI framework. As an example the CCortex platform seems like it may be a good framework within which to build biologically realistic NN based AGI systems (note, this is based on their literature only, I've never tried their system). I wish you much luck with your own approach And, I would imagine that if you create a software framework supporting your own approach in a convenient way, my own currently favored AI approaches will not be conveniently explorable within it. That's the nature of framework-building. -- Ben - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=79828215-b4b8b5
[agi] OpenCog
Re the recent discussion of OpenCog -- this recent post I made to the OpenCog mailing list may perhaps help clarify the intentions underlying the project further. -- Ben -- Forwarded message -- From: Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Dec 27, 2007 11:07 AM Subject: Re: Project Questions To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Dec 27, 2007 9:27 AM, Pat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ben, > > Thank you for the link to the paper. My thinking has been that in > order to develop a machine capable of general intelligence, a > specification would need to be developed which outlines the > functionality of a thinking machine, separate from any implementation > issues. I totally agree -- and, I have tried to do that in a 350-page manuscript, which I plan to release online sometime in the first half of 2008. HOWEVER, even though I am a big fan of my AI design, it's obvious that there are going to be many lessons learned during the course of working out more detailed designs of subcomponents and experimenting with implementations. This is a useful conversation, because I'm seeing that it in talking about OpenCog it will be valuable to distinguish -- OpenCog core -- Specific AGI designs that can be built on the OpenCog core, generally in a modular fashion (each AGI system comprising a certain set of MindAgents and a certain set of functional units) The OpenCog core may be used for a load of different AGI designs My own AGI design is one particular design that can be built on the OpenCog core. The AGI design that I will advocate for building on top of the OpenCog core is a variant of the Novamente design, I'm not sure what to call it, but it will get a name before the OpenCog launch... However, I also want to explicitly encourage the creation of other AGI designs on top of OpenCog. Hopefully there can be crosspollination of different approaches. > I can see where your approach of taking diverse contributions of > software and integrating them around a framework could be instrumental > in the exploration and discovery of the specification (among other > benefits). As I hope I've clarified above, -- I do have a fairly precise specification I'm interested in using OpenCog to explore, which is closely related (but not identical) to my Novamente specification -- However, I don't intend OpenCog to be restricted to the implementation. exploration of this specification of mine Thanks for your questions, they are certainly good ones... -- Ben - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=79828670-a37b2c
Re: [agi] NL interface
On Dec 21, 2007 11:08 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the goal of your system. What application? Sorry about the delay, and Merry Xmas =) The goal is to provide an easy input for AGI, temporarily until full NL capacity is achievable. I guess most AGIers would have realized by now, that a separate NL "module" (such as a chart parser, even with statistical learning) would not work for AGI. The semantics of words, together with syntactic knowledge, should be integrated in one big KB, ie, generic memory. I'm planning ultimately to do that, but this is not happening immediately. That's why I want to build an interface that lets users provide grammatical information and the likes. The exact form of the GUI is still unknown -- maybe like a panel with a lot of templates to choose from, or like the "autocomplete" feature. It will be useful for logic-based / symbolic / hybrid AGIs. YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=79842424-e4f6fd
