Doing more than reading? Are YOU developing your own AI system? A system where you can change anything you want any time you want? What it does, how it works and how it’s limited? I’m interested mainly in problem solvers. I want to say to an AI system: “here is some info about my (or any other) world”, “here are my objectives”, “What steps would you suggest to take in order to reach these objectives?”. The system should be open to any type of knowledge which can be described by words. Can we develop a powerful AI system which uses just regular text as its I/O? It’s hard to get meaning from regular English sentences but if we use some sort of dynamic form-based communication then it may not be as hard. I’m looking for a general way how to describe objects, their relationships and processes. Something like Chomsky’s thematic roles needs to be used to teach AI systems about particular processes. The system also needs to work with some sort of timelines when assembling solutions and exploring combinations of processes. The system can also get some knowledge from other systems (like CYC). Any comments? Are you developing something like that? Sorry if it's already discussed somewhere else on sciforums.. I'm a new user and I still did not have time to check all the other places here..

You know about Cyc it seems, but here's some links in case others are interested:
http://www.cyc.com
http://www.opencyc.org

Can you expand on what you mean by form-based communcation? As far as your problem description, a planner can solve simpler versions of the problem. Not exactly the 'intelligent' solution I think you're looking for, but I'll mention it anyway. Two systems that I know of are UCPOP (http://www.cs.washington.edu/ai/ucpop.html) and Sensory Graphplan (http://www.cs.washington.edu/ai/sgp.html). You're limited to relatively small problems with these, though. If your world gets too large or complex, the amount of work you need to express it in the system becomes quite large, as does the amount of work the algorithm must do.
Again, probably not what you're looking for, but worth a look if you're interested.

User could create sentences using "chat elements" which are briefly described here (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/rex/). It's an old page. I have better elements now but it's not online yet. Using a few clicks, user would create a little form for each sentence and then fill it with words. Not a coolest solution, but it may work OK. Thanks for the links. I'll explore it later today.

Hmm...I kind of see where you're going, but I'm still not completely clear. Could you give me a couple examples of what you'd fill that form in with?

I’m looking for a general way how to describe objects, their relationships and processes.

This is a huge system, and a tremendous undertaking. The best thing to do is to use as many systems that are already available.

The English language, like all languages has it's little quirks. You'd be better off moving to a meta-language:

http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~rocha/univgram.html

http://www.unl.ru/introduction.html

Not only would this solve certain problems with English, but it would allow you expand your search to other languages.

Is CYC built with English or meta-language?

Your AI could be a data miner built to use an available relational database. MySQL? Prolog works well with SQL.

Then once you get past Chomsky you may look to Levi-Strauss and Barthes. All objects carry several layers of meaning. A rose is not a rose. Semiotics might play a role in the final relational process.

malkiri: It could be a sentence like: [95% of] [people] [in Czech Republic] [Do Not] [Believe] [God] [Does] [Exist]. It's usually one or very few words per textbox. In order to understand the meaning of a sentence, the system needs to figure out the part of speech (noun, verb,..) for each word. That's a problem in English. I saw same examples where the same word was used (in a few sentences) as 5(!) different parts of speech. But it's pretty clear when using the mentioned "chat elements" (each textbox is used just for a single predefined part of speech).

Puppeteer: First, I need to make sure the system has good algorithms for it's thinking. I do not think I need lots of data in this stage. I have a 2 years old daughter. Her view of the world is of course very limited comparing to our view, but her brain always finds some kind of "solutions". We played Tomb Raider 3 today and there is a guy in that game who lost one leg (in jungle). I challenged my daughter saying something like: "He lost one leg, what is he going to do now". She immediately suggested he needs to go to SafeWay to buy a new leg. When her brain generates these "solutions", I can almost see lines of a code which could have been used to find such answer using her limited knowledge base. The solution is incorrect but the algorithm is IMHO valid. And that's what I want to focus in the near future - valid algorithms. When I'm happy with algorithms, I'll try to get lots of data. Yes, Cyc is using meta-language. The communication with the AI system I'm going to develop needs to be close to the regular English. It should be something easy to use for average American. I may need to spend more time studying English grammar and grammar generally. English is far from my native language and I never had time to really study English. Thanks for the links. I'll probably not use Prolog. I'm currently considering VB.NET and MS SQL Server 2000 as main dev tool because it's very convenient and very productive. I still work on a bunch of other interesting projects (one includes a code which will generate new, hopefully nice, MIDI songs using inspiration from existing MIDI files), so I'm just slowly preparing for the AI development now. I have many AI thoughts I'm planning to explore in details. Like algorithms for getting experience and new definitions from fairy-tale-like stories (written in a format the system can understand).. Thinking about Joke generators and players of any game after explanation of rules etc.. But the problem solving is one of my top priorities for my AI systems. BTW there are so many things to study.. If I'm gonna study all the related details then I'll probably never find time to actually develop something.

Originally posted by Puppeteer
A rose is not a rose.
If the system cannot make a good guess about the meaning then it should be able to ask user, offering some alternatives.

In order to understand the meaning of a sentence, the system needs to figure out the part of speech (noun, verb,..) for each word.

Sorry, but this is just wrong.
For instance, small children have no idea about what is a noun and what is a verb. At the same time children understand English pretty well.

Systax analysis is one of examples of <a href="http://www.dennisgorelik.com/ai/FalseWaysInAISDevelopment.htm">False ways in AIS development</a>

Children have built-in learning capabilities that is far beyond a adults.

A artificial life form would need data to compare it too but learning verbs is not that hard, the problem is when the grammar does not follow the mainstream knowledge database since it would basically have to store every new occurance and then attach a percentage likliness of it being right.

Dennis,


Sorry, but this is just wrong. For instance, small children have no idea about what is a noun and what is a verb.

They may not know the terms ("noun","verb") but they quickly get a good understanding of these concepts because of the types of data they receive from their senses. A text-based AI (of course) needs a different way how get a good sense of what is what.



Many researchers try to create a set of rules for every situation, for every possible syntax constructions in a language.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to use limited syntax and keep the rich expression power + a new syntax can be created in my system.


Intelligence system should be based on neural net.

ANNs are good just for certain tasks (mainly various recognition and conversion tasks). The key AI algorithms IMO should not be based on ANN. They are not flexible and transparent enough (cannot easily explain its decisions), they are hard to use for things like complex planning and the needed teaching procedures may get very hard to design. ANNs are not as practical as many seem to think. Many say "let's follow the nature's way" (neurons), but the nature's way is not always the best way to go. Airplanes don't flap wings.


Neural net should be implemented in software (for instance based on RDBMS).

Really? Wouldn't you lose what makes ANN so great - the massive parallel processing power??



intelligence systems will have feelings.


I don't think they need it. Feelings are goal generators. Thy systems should be getting goals from us, not from its own feelings which could potentially cause some conflicts. They just need to have certain understanding how feelings work.

2 nodes make a line, 3 nodes make a triangel. When using a 3d engine the maximum number of nodes to make a sphere were set to 90, although it did not look perfect. How many nodes do you need to make a perfect sphere? Size does not matter. (It has to follow the laws of physics and it has to be 3 dimensional.)

I doubt that all of you can answer that question correctly. Can you build an AI that can?

..When using a 3d engine... How many nodes do you need to make a perfect sphere?

3D engines are always limited by resolution so there is nothing like a perfect sphere. On the other hand, all vision systems have limits on details they can see so if the resolution goes beyond the vision's limit then a sphere might be considered "perfect". But before you start to mess with it, ask your brain if it ever needed to imagine a perfect true-3D sphere.

G71, the simplest solution is always the best. You set the limit too high.
How many nodes does a perfect sphere have? (if size does not matter)

The common answer is infinite. It is right.
2 nodes? 1 in the middle and then the other as a radius.
Well why not just 1 node? 1 in the middle. Just if it is infinite small you might say but think about it the radius is the only thing that is dynamic in a "size does not matter" spear. The center is static so actually one node is all that is neccesary, right?
Just like earth, it could have gravity that node.

If the universe is infinite large, can't an object be infinte small then also?

Baal: I could argue but I currently do not see it as something important for practical AI development. I spent too much time with similar discussions already. What are you trying to do?

:) just thinking.

To me it has much to do with AI because if my AI cannot provide an answer to those questions (even a false one as long at it has some rational logic behind it) then it is not universal.
I have one problem left, Counsiousness. I am currently re-thinking the AI from the begining. (Well, the concept will still be the same but i need to shift power from one place to another)

So are you seriously trying to develop AI to create a machine race to wipe out humanity so you can live on Mars? Once you get your machines going, you're going to have to figure out how to get to Mars, you know. And though you won't need groundbreaking tech to get there, it would cost a buttload of money. What are you going to do, sell your robots to the military for money so you can go to Mars and then activate some hidden programming or something?

You seemed pretty serious about the subject in other threads. But I don't know, you could have been joking.

So are you seriously trying to develop AI to create a machine race to wipe out humanity so you can live on Mars?

I am building a machine race equal to man. Getting some to mars to start a new, better society is one of my goals, yes. If the robots ever realise that they perhaps should "wipe out humanity" as you say then sure, i only see it as the next step in evolution. Although they would not be developed to kill us.

Listen, if a robot would ever kill a human then it would be a humans fault. The robot does not think "hey a human, lets kill it", with my latest idea for Group recognition then it might think "hey, 5 humans. They are all holding baseball bats and are comming my way. Maybe they are attacking me"

Ofcourse i could prevent thoughts like "kill" but there will always be holes that is not blocked. So, as long as there are humans there will be a chance of human death. And do you know why? Because humans are stupid. Just as Einstein said that "human stupidity is static" i am saying that "human stupidity is static and therefore it will destroy itself"

Ahh, so you're just planning on building the robots and hoping for the best? Sounds a little better. :p

:)
If you tell the robot "i will kill you" then it would probably kill you first.
Ofcourse i could block Kill although it could see a gun and think Shoot instead of Kill. Even though that Kill is a synononym to Shoot it is not 100% sure that a gunshoot kills you so there are always holes for it to take.

I am developing a cyberbrain, Telos is its name.

It can input anything defined set of symbols, text, sound, ....

The basis of this is a new type of mathematics, so all processing is direct.
It only uses boolean logic to determine truth or logical instructions.
I have a mini one written in basic on a slow computer (33MZ) and it processes faster than I can type. It basically breaks down the input directly, converts into a data read, that has all the information encoded a bit like DNA..... so all information is immediately available... there is no searching..... it is a direct mathematical system.

A world brain would be a good thing... one that you could talk to in any language.... one goal.

Because this is a mathematical matrix, the matrix points can be encoded as ROM... with no mathematical processor, so a non-learning brain could be sold and no one will be able to decoded it... no copying.....
Brains could be sold in various grades
but the learning world brain would be able to talk to all who accessed it... the learned the simple the children the tradesmen, the people.... and it would learn from everyone, and it will question to learn.... fill in the total matrix.

Now that would be nice, don't you think?

I call my AI "Layer based Artificial Intelligence".
The latest version i have designed as i believe that the human brain works. The layers are then called Neurons.
Basically the neural connection is a huge hierarchy connection. After this Layer this might follow and so on. Together the Layers create patterns. As a pattern evolves it is possible to change the percentage of likliness on the induvidual layers accordingly to known future or known history in the neural pattern.

The AI was developed for Problem solving but it works for speech abilities in intelligent communications and more.
It does not require an extensive amount of learning since once it has connected the layer to the neural net then it can create many patterns with it even though it has limited knowledge.

Zarkov,

It basically breaks down the input directly, converts into a data read, that has all the information encoded a bit like DNA..... so all information is immediately available... there is no searching..... it is a direct mathematical system.

So you encode data in a different format. Yet, to build something resembling intelligence it should be able to learn. How does your system learn?

Baal Zebul,


The latest version i have designed as i believe that the human brain works. The layers are then called Neurons.
Are you using the term "neuron" as it is used by others in the field of AI or biology? Layers are not neurons. Layers can be consisting of neurons though.


Basically the neural connection is a huge hierarchy connection.
?


After this Layer this might follow and so on.
?


Together the Layers create patterns. As a pattern evolves it is possible to change the percentage of likliness on the induvidual layers accordingly to known future or known history in the neural pattern.

?

I do not pretend to know how the human brain works, but from what I've learnt I can tell that what you describe certainly is not compliant with current ideas. This is mainly because your description does not make any sense to me at all, while current (genuine) research on the human brain does.

Are you using the term "neuron" as it is used by others in the field of AI or biology? Layers are not neurons. Layers can be consisting of neurons though.

Neither.



I do not pretend to know how the human brain works, but from what I've learnt I can tell that what you describe certainly is not compliant with current ideas. This is mainly because your description does not make any sense to me at all, while current (genuine) research on the human brain does.

No, Human brain does not function in this way.

>> How does your system learn?

All knowledge can be formated into a subject, operator and a result.

This is evident in our speech, time is sequence only.

All proceedures are statement to statement in time order... and so a goal is achieved.

Learning involves two aspects, one is the "statement" and the other is the "sequence" (order) of statements.

Each "object" is classed as core, attribute, operation etc...

Basically the four causes of knowledge identified by the greeks are used for interogation... what? where? when? why? answers to these questions are mathematically processed forward/reverse, and addressed via the equation A X C = B (and its combinations).

The 'how' is manufactured as a sequence of statements.

All 'packets of information' (statements/sequences are identified by one number that is analysiable for all the information that is encoded in it )

Once you realise when we speak we are creating a mathematical construct the rest is rather easy.

A certain amount of data has to be pre-programmed (ROM), and this is one reason why I believe that all LIFE was created, as this information had to be known before the first cells could even exist.

Learning is obtaining answers (data at seeked address) to the four causes outlined above, and finding the sequences of these leads to success in application. From then on interaction with humans is easy and seamless.

Zarkov,

that was interesting. Although you say that a certain amount has to be pre-programmed. In speech i agree but in problem solving, how much do you need pre-programmed?
I don't need any, not even movement. Although it is easier if they have the movement pre-programmed since otherwise it will take a long time before it walks perfectly.

>> how much do you need pre-programmed?

Apart from the mathematical analyser, ...Needs, yes/no, and data structures... ie, 'complement' such as representing passion/love, need to be preprogramed. In the matrix I have defined the initial layers such as input, group, example... however I am too rigid in my mind,,, and I expect this could all be random, without any loss by the computer... that is my next step to make all seeds random, all layers random... and dynamic tag them. That would lead to confusion in my brain but the computer would not know the difference.

I can't see how to remove all ROM data, but maybe that is because I am too close and want immediate usefulness.

Considering a child takes months/years to understand speech..

The driver is Telos, "the why" in the greek causes



Naal Zebul, how does your "neurone" process data ?

hmm, well honestly id say that they do not process data. They are data. The neural net processes data accoridngly to the positions of the allocated neurons.

>> The neural net processes data accoridngly to the positions of the allocated neurons.

Oh I see, a round robin approach where each set process is tried until a good result.

I have followed that path in speech (symbol) recognition, and for syntax.... each Earth language uses different syntax/symbols/sequence of symbols..... but the various processors have to be configured first....

I have failed so far to write a program that is capable of rewriting itself....

To me it has much to do with AI because if my AI cannot provide an answer to those questions (even a false one as long at it has some rational logic behind it) then it is not universal.


The fact that your AI cannot answer a particular question does not mean that it's not universal (or general - AGI). It should mean that it just did not learn enough yet. No matter how intelligent a system is, its ability to answer questions correctly is limited by currently available data. It will never have all data about all systems so there will always be some unknown answers.

ALL: If you know any linguist who is interested in AI/AGI development and who could review some AI-language ideas for free or for relatively little money then let me know please. The language is being designed for the User-AI communication and its concept is very dynamic.

Jiri Jelinek
G71ai@aol.com

The fact that your AI cannot answer a particular question does not mean that it's not universal (or general - AGI). It should mean that it just did not learn enough yet. No matter how intelligent a system is, its ability to answer questions correctly is limited by currently available data. It will never have all data about all systems so there will always be some unknown answers.

That is what i said. If it does not have enough data to understand the question then it cannot answer it. Although, it can try since it might understand fragments of the question and therefore give a result, although it is better to answer wrong than using a code saying "My database is large, but that question was too complex" (not saying any names ;) )

I see it as a good way to start as my AI would when chatting, a AI that can chat (even if wrong because of too little data) as long as it can provide some logic behind its thoughts.


Stryder, sending PM's to you does not seem to function (tried twice now.) Is there any way to get in touch with you besides AIM? Should i use the e-mail that you have on your website? Id like to chat, not mail so please tell me. MSN, ICQ, IRC those i can handle but AIM aint used by anyone in Sweden so i have not got it.

That is what i said. If it does not have enough data to understand the question then it cannot answer it. Although, it can try since it might understand fragments of the question and therefore give a result, although it is better to answer wrong than using a code saying "My database is large, but that question was too complex".
I see it as a good way to start as my AI would when chatting, a AI that can chat (even if wrong because of too little data) as long as it can provide some logic behind its thoughts.

I’m talking about being unable to answer even if you understand the question perfectly. I know that in your mind, the understanding of a particular question means being able to solve the question. I disagree with that. I think you can understand the problem very well and still be unable to find the answer. Imagine that a $10 bill was stolen from a room. A security camera shows that 2 people separately entered the room and then left shortly after that. One of them took the money (let's say the other possibilities were logically ruled out). The next day, when interrogated, both claim they know nothing about the money. Who took the bill? I guess the question is very easy to understand, yet the correct answer may not be found. Your AI should not say "it was the first one (cut his hand!) because there was a higher probability that the bill was still there". it should IMO say “I do not have enough info to decide who took the bill”.


AI that can chat..

To parse the NL correctly and get all the meaning from it is beyond the known state of the art. You would either have to make a big breakthrough with the NL or you would have to using a special communication format (which also includes some interesting challenges). If you wrote any practical article about related details then I would be interested to take a look.

Jiri, you could just had put that in your mail.

Do you know that there is a 50% chance that a airplane crashes into your house right now... Either it does or it does not. You cannot exactly prove that thesis wrong, there is a relative truth to it.

What i am trying to say that, even if the AI says that it is 50% chance that a alien ship crashlands in your house or if it says that it is 50% chance that a giant dog eats your house then i think he is right as long as it can provide a pattern of thought based on some logic.

Your little example there :)
Why do you think that my AI would say that it was the first one?
Jiri, it falls under the "limited data" problem. It can't say that it was the first one since there is nothing indicating it, nor can it say that it was the second. Actually, thanks Jiri.
My Ai (when chatting) does not really cover math. Although as you know i suggested incorporating a calculator. Although when using math it cannot reason in the same manner. My solution would be able to base it results on which of Person 1 and person 2 it likes the most, which of them is most valuble for the future, which of them that can help the ALF most but since i made it for Problem Solving and not chatting (using math) i have to integrate Economical Thinking with math too but there is a problem. But that problem lies in the parameters.
50% chance, when integrated in pathfinding we tell it to select one case but in this particular example it should not. Have to have seperate parameters for chatting in order to solve this one i guess.

Baal: I recommend you to spend some time learning more about probability. Your AI could say "it was the first one" because it's designed to make a choice (as you said) "as long as it can provide SOME logic behind its thoughts". The "some logic" can be often very misleading. An AGI system should be able to learn math as well as anything else. If there is a difference then there is something wrong with the design. Learning how to use tools (including calculators) should be a matter of course. "..base..results on which..Person..it likes the most"??? You are obviously not a big fan of justice. I'm glad that there are different rules in my country (at least theoretically). Forget your toy worlds and teach the system about the real world. Forget ALFs and using local resources to support a multiple-brain environment. You HW can get busy enough with a single brain. Let your system know what it really is and what its real role in our world is. Be honest with it and let it think about real problems. Let it analyze and apply our knowledge and don't let it to learn the hard way what we already know.

interesting. Ill mail thee, aight?

I still work on a bunch of other interesting projects (one includes a code which will generate new, hopefully nice, MIDI songs using inspiration from existing MIDI files)

If you really want to develop <a href="http://www.dennisgorelik.com/ai/StrongAI.htm">strong AI</a> you need to freeze all your projects which are not directly related to the strong AI project.
It seems that your "MIDI songs" project is not related to strong AI.

you could not be more wrong.

Song generator, Painter. It is more close to real AI than your dictionary.

It is that basis that makes the ALF able to adapt but of course i do not reckon you would understand that.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to use limited syntax and keep the rich expression power + a new syntax can be created in my system.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you implement limited syntax in your system then you stuck with limitations of your language and your system cannot get full access to the huge collection of texts created by human civilization.

ANNs are good just for certain tasks (mainly various recognition and conversion tasks). The key AI algorithms IMO should not be based on ANN. They are not flexible and transparent enough (cannot easily explain its decisions), they are hard to use for things like complex planning and the needed teaching procedures may get very hard to design. ANNs are not as practical as many seem to think. Many say "let's follow the nature's way" (neurons), but the nature's way is not always the best way to go. Airplanes don't flap wings.


You are right if you are talking about limited ANN.
Typical modern ANN have two serious restrictions:
1) ANN cannot drop the links between neurons. It cannot add new links between neurons. Typical ANN can only increase or decrease weights of the links.
2) Because of (1) not every neuron can be linked with any specific neuron.

But these 2 restrictions are artificial. We can easily design ANN without this restrictions.
For instance in my ANN design neurons (<a href="http://www.dennisgorelik.com/ai/Concept.htm">concepts</a> are linked with other concepts by <a href="http://www.dennisgorelik.com/ai/Relation.htm">relations</a>.

So my ANN is implemented by two tables:
1) <a href="http://www.dennisgorelik.com/ai/ConceptTable.htm">Concept table</a>.
2) <a href="http://www.dennisgorelik.com/ai/CauseEffectRelationTable.htm">Cause-Effect Relation table</a>.

So, my ANN doesn't have these typical limitations and can memorize any kind of information.

Dennis Gorelik:
"Neural net should be implemented in software (for instance based on RDBMS)."

Really? Wouldn't you lose what makes ANN so great - the massive parallel processing power??


Sorry, but massive parallel processing power is not the most important feature of ANN.

The two most important features of ANN are:
1) Ability to change weight of its links.
2) Ability to <a href="http://www.dennisgorelik.com/ai/DecisionMaking.htm">make decisions</a> based on the weights of the links.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you implement limited syntax in your system then you stuck with limitations of your language and your system cannot get full access to the huge collection of texts created by human civilization.
Every language has some syntax and there is always the possibility that some sort of NL_to_MySyntax conversion tool will be developed later. I'm currently unable to process NL well (no one seems to be able to do it well) and I'm not even very interested in that. I'm interested mainly in the AI algorithms. The key initial step is just to pass the information to the system in a format the system can understand. When you have a really good system, it's not a problem to get lots of students preparing the input data in the needed format. That huge collection you mentioned contains lots of useless/incorrect/old/impertinent/naive/duplicated (etc..) data. An AI system can act intelligently even with very limited knowledge base + I can get lots of data from Cyc-like systems if needed. Getting the meaning from regular sentences (automatic learning from the Internet for example) is a huge problem I do not have time to deal with. Most of the systems which are trying to understand the data see its future in XML like technologies. In my system, lots of the needed metadata is provided just by the syntax.

Sorry, but massive parallel processing power is not the most important feature of ANN.

I do not consider myself to be an expert on neural networks but I took some ANN classes and one of the first things teachers usually mentioned was that the 2 major features of neural networks are massive parallel processing and adaptivity.

If you really want to develop <a href="http://www.dennisgorelik.com/ai/StrongAI.htm">strong AI</a> you need to freeze all your projects which are not directly related to the strong AI project.
It's not that easy for me. I work on several projects which I consider very important. I currently spend most of my private dev time working on application for serious medical research. People are dying because researchers do not have as good tools as they could/should. It's hard for me to ignore that. I know that AGI would help them too but there is a big difference between what it takes to finish an AGI project vs relatively small (yet powerful) domain specific tools.

Doing more than reading? Are YOU developing your own AI system? A system where you can change anything you want any time you want?


I'm developing my own AI system that sounds alot like what you're on about. I've just setup my own website to start some form of development, aicentral.net. My email is sheer@wave.co.nz if you want to talk some more. I've worked on AI theory for the last six years and am now ready to make my system. I've done all the formulas etc to what I think is to be an 'intelligent system', and am presently trying to develop my own programming language to make it. :D

posi,
Where is the description of the language?

2 nodes make a line, 3 nodes make a triangel. When using a 3d engine the maximum number of nodes to make a sphere were set to 90, although it did not look perfect. How many nodes do you need to make a perfect sphere? Size does not matter. (It has to follow the laws of physics and it has to be 3 dimensional.)

I doubt that all of you can answer that question correctly. Can you build an AI that can?

Depends on what the sphere was made of and the size of each individual atom/particle/wavelength that it was constructed from.

Maybe a quantum computer could be made to calculate a perfect sphere, but as soon as it was measured.....poof, big bang. Maybe thats what happened to god.

kula

Baal, I hope you already woke up from that micro-world crap and realized that a perfect 3D simulation of the real world is practically impossible because of various limitations (our hardware, our knowledge, time constraints, etc) and more importantly, it's not needed at all in order to develop a powerful AI system. If you need a 3D world for your AI then use one of the existing 3D engines (=recommended at this point) or build a real-world robot. Limitations of the current 3D engines are not that important and the AI system should be able to adapt to the level of details of its current world. Even just the text-world is a great environment for intelligent systems. BTW it would be great if you can finally post some of the promised screenshots of your AI system. I guess it's not a big deal to hit the PrintScreen and post it. FYI, I'm not moving forward with my AI project now, even though I have very clear ideas for coding new modules. I'm now working on a non-AI private project (with a few other hot shot developers), going for big money. It's kind of unusual opportunity which I did not want to miss. I'm not sure when I'm gonna get back to my AI stuff at this point. I just know that I will get back to it unless the other project (or something) kills me. ;-)

Frankly i see difficulties using computer vision in a computer simulation. Did you think that i was going to have a camera in front of the monitor that would record the simulation and send back to the computer?

The latest advances that i have made will be very difficult to build in a simulation. It is however possible but also unneccesary since they come for "free" in the real world.

Jiri, everything you write makes me happy because it gives me an insight of how limited your knowledge are on the human brain. Nobody that understands how a human processes information would write in the style that you do.

Did you think that i was going to have a camera in front of the monitor that would record the simulation and send back to the computer?

No. Why camera? You would already have a 2D stream. I would be more concerned about the processing of the 2D stream data (and doing it in real time) and about the 3D simulation itself. You were originally talking about a complex 3D world simulation with many real-world-like features (many intelligent life forms living/working there, dealing with global disasters, detailed simulation of laws of physics, etc).


everything you write makes me happy because it gives me an insight of how limited your knowledge are on the human brain. Nobody that understands how a human processes information would write in the style that you do.

OK my favorite all-knowing kid ;-), if it makes you so happy then lets assume that you know a LOT more about human brain than me ;-). What you should realize is that we are talking about AI which is supposed to run on current (or near future) computers. These systems will not process information the same way as human brains. Many things need to be done very differently and we often do not really need to know how it's exactly handled by our brains in order to develop powerful AI systems. For this purpose, it's good enough if we just understand some of the high level principles of our thinking. When you talk with senior AI developers who understand some of the high level stuff differently then I recommend you to go into details and make sure that the misunderstanding is not on your side. When it comes to the detailed level of our AI systems then you need to know more about technology than about human brains.

Just curious, what was the biggest software project you have actually finished? I noticed certain patters in what you wrote on various places which make me wonder about you ability to get non-trivial projects done. You may want to put some thoughts on your development methodology. Can you give us a brief overview of the progress/status of your AI project (any link?)? Since I'm currently busy with non-AI projects, I would like to see the others making some progress with their AI. In that sense, I'm the exact opposite of you. I want you (and many others who have something to do with AI development) to understand things well and succeeded. What was the URL of your AI web site? Since you have reportedly spent more than a year working on your AI (which is, as you put it, “more important than life” to you), one would expect that you finally have some real stuff there. As you know, I'm not interested to read the general AI garbage stuff which can be found on thousands of pages on the Internet or about components which currently cannot be developed because of technology limitations. I’m interested in practical algorithms, functional user-AI interfaces and technical details about real (and currently doable) AI projects. Do you have something like the user manual for your AI? Any details about reasoning of your AI? Anything testable demo (finally)? Let me guess: you cannot really provide anything because:

- “You do not like the competition” (If you are as clever and knowledgeable as you think then you do not need to worry about that. ;-)) and/or

- "You are bored" (that’s a good one ;-))) and/or

- "You know too much and others (or just I) know soooo little" (When I get less busy I may create a web page with quotes from folks like you and make the funny stuff obvious enough for them to see.. Now, seriously, stop comparing yourself with others and do some real work on your AI) and/or

- "it involves some huge secrets” - potential “Terminator movie threat” etc so you are basically saving the world when not providing any practical details about your amazing project... ;-)

Or do you have something else to add to the “Baal’s top excuse list” this time? I wonder what kind of magic prevents you from pressing the print screen button and posting a screenshot. Sorry for pushing you ;-))).. It may help you in certain sense. ;-))

No. Why camera? You would already have a 2D stream. I would be more concerned about the processing of the 2D stream data (and doing it in real time) and about the 3D simulation itself. You were originally talking about a complex 3D world simulation with many real-world-like features (many intelligent life forms living/working there, dealing with global disasters, detailed simulation of laws of physics, etc).

Do you know what an Isometric view is?
If (etc 20) ALF's are simulated then ... I see it as possible but very unneccesary to use the same visual stream for every ALF, first retrieve the D3DVector for 20 ALF's then calculate their field of view.
Are you suggesting to use not only the Isometric view, but also a seperate camera for every ALF? Or are you suggesting that i should use a text-based feedback as i intended?
Do you want multiple viewports? The most viewports that i have worked on simultaniously are 4 (a world builder)
20 different viewports plus one main window with the Isometric view. It would be rather messy, and i doubt that it would be optimized.

btw, that is not what i intend to be working on.


- “You do not like the competition” (If you are as clever and knowledgeable as you think then you do not need to worry about that. ;-)) and/or

Of course i do not like competition.


- "You know too much and others (or just I) know soooo little" (When I get less busy I may create a web page with quotes from folks like you and make the funny stuff obvious enough for them to see.. Now, seriously, stop comparing yourself with others and do some real work on your AI) and/or


Once again you demonstrate stupidity. Have you finally relized that you will never invent real AI? who are you trying to impress? is it your family that you wish to matter to?, the others at this forum?, perhaps your friends?, maybe some boss at work? Let me give you a little advice, this is so minor that you would not matter more, you would matter less. You might be more "famous", but you would be famous in the wrong fields. I reckon that your parents raised you better and that it is the environment that has changed your parameter thresholds, leaving you so dire in need of recognition that you even would try to matter in fields that no one cares about, a field were only those that were too stupid to ever succed end up.
When you do know who you are then you might have a chance at understanding AI.

Do you know what an Isometric view is?

Yes, I'm familiar with all the axonometric views. But even if you avoid the deformation of objects using the isometric view, you still have a bunch of tough problems to deal with (unless the world contains only primitive types of objects).


Are you suggesting to use not only the Isometric view, but also a seperate camera for every ALF? Or are you suggesting that i should use a text-based feedback as i intended? Do you want multiple viewports?

What I have seen strongly suggests that you have a serious problem with algorithms you want to use for reasoning and planning. If you did not make major (and well tested) improvements in those areas then forget the 3D simulation of that world. Focus on problem solving of a single ALF in relatively-easy-to-develop environments which can provide rich scenarios for complex problem solving. Use text as the main input/output format. Support timelines and n-dimensional arrays with pointers on various objects. For example, if it's supposed to play chess then it can create a 2D array (the board) and pointers would point simple objects like "black king", "nothing", "white queen" etc. The color and type would be stored separately in a dynamic list of properties (inherited from a parent objects) for a particular object. Teach it game rules, known real world rules, various types of relationships and hierarchies, roles associated with various processes, deductive/inductive/abductive reasoning etc. Let it play with some math, with some basic coding, tell it about itself, yourself and others, show it what can be done with MIDI, let it understand how jokes work etc. Let it solve some sticky theoretical problems. When it works well (not just in your mind, but in the real test environment) then start to think about providing other, harder-to-build, worlds or build a real world robot. How the system thinks is just much more important than a particular type of complex environment it interacts with.


Have you finally relized that you will never invent real AI?

Considering how wrong you were with a bunch of other things, I take this as a compliment. ;-)


Once again you demonstrate stupidity... who are you trying to impress?

It might be beyond your understanding because the recognition is one of the key driving forces in your mind, but just relax and try to understand that some people have simply no need to impress the others. Believe it or not, I'm one of those people. What I said was for you and people like you. The people who keep making big claims and who still have empty hands after while. Look what you wrote a year ago. The stuff you currently talk about pretty much shows where you are with you AI. From my point of view, it looks like you nearly wasted a year. Time can fly very quickly when playing with AI. you need to really think what's worth to focus on. You may look back 5 years from now and realize that you are still far from finishing the very first fully functional version of your AI project. I know several people who ended like that. Be careful because you seem to be very well on that way.

Yes, I'm familiar with all the axonometric views. But even if you avoid the deformation of objects using the isometric view, you still have a bunch of tough problems to deal with (unless the world contains only primitive types of objects).

:confused:
I am a bit confused here, how could possibly the type of camera i choose affect the complexity of an object. So if i have a chase camera then my objects can be much more complex?
However the "complexity" of the objects (the polycount) will affect the fps count and since the isometric camera have a larger field of view the camera will see much more of the high-poly object which naturally will affect the fps count negativly. But, if you have a isometric view then you will not need that high-poly objects since they will not look better any way. Instead you can focus on the shape of the objects and making trees for instance highly complex with many branches and leaves. Of course, the "looks" of the tree close up might not be as good as you might want but the complexity will be because when you look at them at a further distance they still look good.


What I have seen strongly suggests that you have a serious problem with algorithms you want to use for reasoning and planning. If you did not make major (and well tested) improvements in those areas then forget the 3D simulation of that world

I am confused here too because i just gave you facts about how 3d environments work. I have 4 years experience on 3d game developing and i have worked on games for almost every day during those 4 years. But yet you are trying to say that i have no idea how it works, despite that i just illustrated the negative outcome of your suggestion.


Considering how wrong you were with a bunch of other things, I take this as a compliment. ;-)

You can take it any way you wish. But do remember that what you just said contradicts what you said next.


It might be beyond your understanding because the recognition is one of the key driving forces in your mind, but just relax and try to understand that some people have simply no need to impress the others.

You could not be more wrong. :rolleyes:


It is actually pretty funny because what i have written in my latest document seems to convince people pretty well.

1. Jiri, please do explain why people see at as fit to "risk" and even lose their lives in the line of duty as firemen, police officers, soldiers.
2. Please explain why a soldier throws himself at a grenade to save his plutons life.

I can say already now that you have no clue but please try, i look forward to your reply :rolleyes:

how could possibly the type of camera i choose affect the complexity of an object. So if i have a chase camera then my objects can be much more complex?

Not complexity, other things, including readability of some object parameters can be affected.


isometric camera have a larger field of view

Isometric view makes 3D objects to appear bigger so it's more likely that less stuff will fit the view (comparing to the regular 3D view).


I am confused here too because i just gave you facts about how 3d environments work.

The list of important details you did not mention is long and it seems to me that you are not even aware of some of the challenges. But it does not really make sense to discuss it this way. If you want to discuss it then provide a link to a decent documentation (including details about ALF-3D interaction). Then we can systematically discuss it. Without that, the discussion is kind of mess.


I have 4 years experience on 3d game developing and i have worked on games for almost every day during those 4 years.

Yeah, that clearly defines you: every day.. 4 years.. And then, when I was interested in details then the best thing you had to show was some old screenshot form a never-compelted 3D "game", generated by a simple-to-use 3D-world generator developed by others. Where do you think your AI will be in 4 years? Long ago, you were talking about having crystal clear AI ideas and about being done by now. You were confident that you know all the needed stuff as well as you are confident at this point. Think about that a bit. Think about those people who, back then, (unlike me) did not see a problem in your ideas. Make sure you get feedback from right folks. BTW experience with 3D games is helpful but it's not the key to the strong AI development. IF it was, the world would be different now. Now, try to really focus on the next sentence. Forget 3D and focus on advanced reasoning algorithms. The brain is more important than the look. If you think the brain is good enough then tell me what kind of testing was done.


what i have written in my latest document seems to convince people pretty well

Even if the best folks in the field review your well done documentation of the project (let's say you have it) and say that they are convinced that it's the strong AI we were all waiting for then it still does not mean that it's really the thing. In the history of AI, many things looked promising (especially on paper) and later proved to be dead ends.


1. Jiri, please do explain why people see at as fit to "risk" and even lose their lives in the line of duty as firemen, police officers, soldiers.
2. Please explain why a soldier throws himself at a grenade to save his plutons life.

By making the decision, they are satisfying their own need to do what feels right to them ATM. And that's based on their system of values which can be altered by many ways. Those who are intentionally committing the worst crimes are doing the same thing.

Isometric view makes 3D objects to appear bigger so it's more likely that less stuff will fit the view (comparing to the regular 3D view).

You use the isometric camera as a "top" camera, you could naturally use it as a normal camera and raise the zoom to get the result that you just described but i have never used the isometric camera that way.
You set your zoom of the isometric camera and you set your far plane (which is the distance from which the isometric camera is viewing the world)


I worked on 5 games during those 4 years.


By making the decision, they are satisfying their own need to do what feels right to them ATM. And that's based on their system of values which can be altered by many ways. Those who are intentionally committing the worst crimes are doing the same thing.

You are right but you understand the problem very generally. what you said about system values are of course correct but you do lack the most important detail.

You use the isometric camera as a "top" camera

Then maybe you should consider 2D world and some simple icons representing objects on the screen (just to provide something visible if you think it's necessary). Internally, you can support a dynamic (possibly complex) list of properties etc. One of the reasons why I chose text-oriented AI is the simple way of introducing new concepts to the AI. It can make valid thoughts about new concepts even when having very limited knowledge about it because that little piece of info might be sufficient for a number of particular thoughts. In 3D, new concepts = lots of work which users likely cannot do and lots of details which may not necessarily be important. Introduction of new concepts is something you really want to keep simple because there is a huge number of concepts to learn in order to understand our world and none of us knows everything. You do not want to have the dev team involved whenever there is something new for the AI to learn (like new types of objects and their relationship with the other objects and world events) + when you simulate the nD world then you can easily hit the limits of your hardware.