MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 August 17

Tues.17.AUG.2010 -- Using Gender to Trigger Who-Queries
Today we would like to see if the AI can ask a who-query rather than a default
what-query, if the gender of a noun in question is known to be masculine or feminine. In English, as opposed to German or Russian, a non-neuter gender indicates that an entity is a "who" and not simply a "what".
When we rename 11aug10A.F as 17aug10A.F and run the Forthmind, entering just the word "god" causes the following exchange.
Robot: GOD WHAT IS GOD GOD Human:
Next in the AskUser module we insert a diagnostic message to reveal any value held in the "mfn" gender variable.
Robot: GOD AskU: mfn = 0 WHAT IS GOD GOD
Robot: GOD WHAT IS GOD GOD Human:
Apparently any value that may have been held in "mfn" for "GOD" has been reset to zero by the time the AskUser module is called. We should be able to run a ".psi" report and check for sure. Oops! We chose the wrong report. We run the ".en" report.
324 100 0 1 1 100 5 100 322 to GOD 329 101 0 0 0 101 2 101 326 to HERE 333 102 0 0 1 102 5 102 331 to MAN 339 103 0 0 0 103 5 103 335 to MEDIA 346 104 0 0 0 104 5 104 341 to PERSON 352 105 0 0 0 105 2 105 348 to THERE 357 106 0 0 0 106 7 106 354 to WHOM 363 107 0 0 2 107 5 107 359 to WOMAN 367 56 0 0 0 56 7 50 365 to YOU 371 67 0 0 0 67 8 58 369 to ARE 380 108 0 0 0 108 5 108 376 to MAGIC 383 58 0 0 0 58 8 58 382 to BE 389 100 0 0 1 100 5 100 386 to GOD 393 100 0 0 1 100 5 100 390 to GOD 398 54 0 0 3 54 7 54 394 to WHAT 401 66 0 2 0 66 8 58 399 to IS 405 100 0 0 1 100 5 100 402 to GOD 409 100 0 0 1 100 5 100 406 to GOD t nen act num mfn fex pos fin aud
The above ".en" report on the English lexical array is encouraging, because it shows that the word "GOD" retains its "mfn" value of one (1) for masculine each time that the word "GOD" is used. However, the software may be blanking out the "mfn" value in advance of the AskUser module. We need to run a search on "mfn" in the http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt Forth code to see in what situations the "mfn" value is reset to zero. Hmm, "mfn" is reset to zero after storage in the InStantiate module. In order not to disturb the extremely fundamental InStantiate functionality, we should perhaps create "mfnflag" as a variable to pass the gender information from InStantiate to the AskUser module.
Tues.17.AUG.2010 -- Post-Upload Upshot
We did create and use "mfnflag" to get the AI to ask "Who" when a noun had a male or female gender, but not without some difficulty. We were coding under time- pressure, and the new "mfnflag" kept losing its value somewhere between its initial setting in the InStantiate module and its utilization in the WhoBe module, but we could not at first detect that the value of the "mfnflag" was being changed -- probably by the occurrence of a zero-gender word like "WHO" itself. Our fix was to protect the "mfnflag" value within an IF-THEN clause in the Instantiate module, so that the positive value of "1" for male or "2" for female would persist until dealt with in the WhoBe module. Unfortunately, such a quick fix may be less than ideal for many normal situations.
It is typical of our AI coding that we latch onto even a sub-optimal algorithm that proves our point, so that we can get the functionality up and running. We were in such a hurry that we tested the AI only by entering the word "god" and seeing our desired response of "GOD WHO IS GOD" and not "GOD WHAT IS GOD". Maybe right now we will test the AI to see if it reaches the fourth call to ReJuvenate and then properly asks, "GOD WHO IS GOD".
We tested the 17aug10A.F AI and we let it run through the four activand concepts of KbTraversal. When it activated the concept of God, it said first "GOD WHO IS" and then "GOD WHO IS GOD", so there are still some bugs to be worked out. The AI also said, "I WHO IS AM I", which is a step backwards in functionality. On the whole, however, the AI is approaching self-referential thought.
We will need to firm up strongly the concept of self or "I", <making it so robust that chains of thought do not derail when the AI is thinking about itself. We may need to have a routine that intercepts the name of the AI Mind (typically "ANDRU") and substitutes the pronoun "I" or "ME" instead. We may also need a routine to accept vocative calls of "ANDRU" without regarding the word "ANDRU" as a suggested topic for a new thought. In fact, software conversion of the name "ANDRU" to an activation of the concept of self or "I" may serve both these purposes at once: prevention of reference to self as "ANDRU", and acceptance of the input name "ANDRU" as merely an attention-getter, giving the AI an opportunity to say something like "YES" or "I AM HERE".
Mentifex -- http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt http://mind.sourceforge.net/theory5.html http://code.google.com/p/mindforth http://cyborg.blogspot.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh?
I could more or less agree that processing natural language well means intelligence. (Hofstaedter). An acquaintance of mine, a linguist, had some ideas and has had help of a programmer in Java. I've seen a demonstration of his analysis of a small story, and it really is able to identify objects in the story. (Really identify in the sense that the ``her'' on the last line, is arguably related to ``girl'' in the first line.) It has some inroads to understanding where a new topic starts, and even where an old topic is picked up. This may be world class, state of the art research etc. but your attempts are so pathetic compared to this.
The difference is probably that he doesn't refuse to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I there a published version of the program which recognises that "her" refers to the girl. I have though of ways of tagging pronouns and finding out what their noun is. One method is to work backwards and find the first noun which agrees in number and gender. I think something more sophisticated must be hapenning.
- Ian Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:01:43 -0700, Ian Parker wrote:

Unlikely: "Mentifex" is a well known crackpot.
His "achievements", such as they are, are approximately equivalent to the level of Terry Winograd's "shrldu", (written something like thirty years ago); but he posts each minor change as though it were the birth of Skynet, and never responds to other posts.
In other works, he's a crackpot and a troll: ignore him.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong on two accounts. The above quote of Ian is not about Mendifex, it was about a program I have seen working.
Secondly, Terry Winograd shrldu stands as one of the great achievements in AI, and ...

Fully agree, but you realise what an insult that is to Winograd?

Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why? Winograd wrote his SHRDLU more than 40 (not 30 as stated above) years ago when it was a breakthrough. Today it isn't, thus writing any comments on someone writing yet another SHRDLU is irrelevant to Winograd.
Consider gliders. Lilienthal built his gliders like around 120 years ago, it was a major breakthrough then. Today, if someone comes up with a "fresh" idea of building a "kite" that flies by himself without bond to the ground, and presents this as a major breakthrough in aviation, one has all rights to call him a crackpot or anything else. That has nothing to do with Lilienthal since he did what noone had done before him. Today one can read almost anything about building a glider in a library, or join aircraft company and build planes. Even as a hobbyist one can build and fly gliders much better than Lilienthal's or aircraft more powerful than Wrigth's Flyer.
--
HE CE3OH...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/28/10 8:35 AM, Aleksej Saushev wrote:

Sorry to go off-topic, but I think there is a world of difference between a "glider" and something like Lilienthal's "hang-glider". While Lilienthal made some impressive flights in his weight shift control hang-gliders, it was the Wrights that invented the first glider with 3-axis control in 1902. While weight shift hang-gliders exist yet today they remain athletic toys with no practical use. However today's latest design gliders and even jet airliners still use the 3-axis control principle invented by the Wrights which was the real major breakthrough in flight IMO.
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That really emphasized Aleksej's point: Lilienthal's weight-shift glider was a tremendous achievement when he did it, but today there's room for argument about whether it should just be called a "glider" or have a qualifier.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Wright brothers developed warping surfaces as a means of controlling an aircraft. Lilienthal' used weight distribution. This clearly would not work in a large powered aircraft. They dis gain patents for the technique.
Stability in aircraft is in fact an interesting point. Birds are unstable, all aircraft up to the F16 were stable. The F16 was the first aircraft to be provided with a fly by wire system. Unstable aircraft have an advantage in lift/drag. On Concorde the tail plane was pressing down, dragging and hindering lift. On the F16 the tailplane lifts. You need a computer to control an F16 which is why it was not done before.
In recent times alternatives to ailerons and elevators (Wright's warping) have been devised. Drill holes in a wing and such air in. This technique reduces the moving surfaces need. It also provides the potential of a method of controlling turbulence. The ins and outs of this, particularly in modern aviation, are quite interesting. Holes in the wings can delay stall and can thus replace flaps.
I really ought to cross post this in rec.aviation.military
- Ian Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/10 6:31 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

The wing warping in essence was just another way to install ailerons. The major part of the warping occurred at the trailing edge of the tips, just like ailerons. Wright wing warping = ailerons = roll control only. The Wrights did not use warping for pitch or yaw control. Instead they invented and used conventional elevator and rudder.
They even identified the advantages of a longer wing (higher aspect ratio) for improved glide (L/D ). They also identified the problem of adverse yaw which led to the movable rudder to counteract, just like most aircraft today especially long-winged gliders.
The lack of control is what killed Lilienthal. The Wrights died of non-aviation related causes.

Sure, lots of variations can be used. But I would estimate that the vast majority of new aircraft built yet today use something that closely resembles the Wright's 3-axis control (with ailerons doing essentially the same job as wing warping).
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The vast majority do indeed. Chord ratio is an interesting point. Indeed a high chard ratio will increase L/D at high speeds, at low speeds thick wings provide more total lift.
One incentive for looking for novel control methods is UAVs, particularly at the smaller end. If you have something the size of a large insect there is an incentive to investigate novel control systems. Another incentives is that holes in the wing are being used to reduce turbulence. Turbulence is in essence chaos. If you are reducing turbulence you might as well also get rid of ailerons and elevators. Computers have in fact increased the range of options.
- Ian Parker
BTW - In rec.aviation.military most of the contributors are very conservative and many do not understand the fundamental principles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are a number of engineering concepts. Is Lift/Drag in the concept dictionary? I could make a list of terms specifically concerned with one topic, say aviation.
The word "better" to me is L/D + wing loading a measure of stall.
Heck why write
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio
70 is absolutely amazing. At 1km (3,300') you can glide 70km in still air - amazing. The table given should give green aviators pause for thought. At over 20:1 it is greener to fly than to drive a car. Dick Rutan has achieved great things.
But getting back to concepts. If I am designing an aircraft I use certain concepts. I have found from experience that linguists are all arts trained. If you go into a technical field like aviation, the concepts involved do not seem to be there. CP Snow talked about 2 cultures.
What are the concepts associated with "stall". In aviation it means minimum flight speed. The speed at which increasing the angle of attack reduces lift. It means different things in different contexts. A full context, arts linguists note includes aviation.
A concept dictionary and a Von Neumann context free language is vital for MOLTO
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/project-molto_en.html
gay in English is the equivalent of "lustige" in German. Google Translate translates everything through English and so we got "homosexuel" as the translation (correct was "lustige"). MOLTO will need a concept language. MOLTO aims to provide quality translation between any language pair. It will have its source code available. Whether this includes a concept dictionary I don't know.
Existing dictionaries like the Oxford English dictionary will provide a concept dictionary. You need to wade through it though. Have MOLTO requested any help from the OED team?
What you are working on is exactly what MOLTO will need. I just wonder how far people have got both in MOLTO and elsewhere.
- Ian Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

His programs are utterly trivial compared to shrdlu. Putting them in the same league again is an insult to Winograd.

I respect a hobbyist who successfully builds a glider much more than I do Mendaxfex. His program would not be a contender in a Loebner contest.
Reproducing the level of AI of shrdlu in Forth would be a highly respectable achievement.

Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If something has performance better than indicated in Wiki, it is a true breakthough. Mind I believe the challenge for aircraft designers, particularly light aircraft designers is to achieve performance closer to what Rutan has shown is possible.
The Cessna for example is a very old design. Anything would be a breakthrough compared with that. Wiki as I have indicated expresses the state of the current art.
In the same way Google Translate is "State of Art". When we point out genders in Hebrew, for example. Google has decided that driving a car and playing football ALWAYS has the male form of the verb. Catering for the many women drivers Israel has, and their women's football team would be a breakthrough therefore.
Google BTW has been arrogant in their responses.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-translate-general/browse_thread/thread/d1bdf1df34669018
You must define state of art. SOA is that in French we get "Le magazin" (shop) - OK. Elle fut tabli. It can't find the gender correctly. They are different sentences. Still working backwards "Le magazin" is the first singular noun. This defines a kind of SOA.
- Ian Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, OK, he *hasn't* managed to recreate 40 year old AI concepts...
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Definitely. Those linguists have collected properties for all words in the English language. For a sentence like "Jesus is god" they can build on a database that knows that god is a substantivum, a person, male, unconcrete etc. The program I've seen correctly identifies subjects, objects verbs etc. in non-trivial sentences, then builds from there. That is not to say that it could make sense of the incoherent crap that Mendifex feeds his baby with.
His ongoing work is confidential. I'll see whether I can dig up some references. Meanwhile those linguistic databases are public domain (as they should) and you could use them.

Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi, Regarding the Mindforth, project, I don't know enough to offer an overall critique.
I like the idea of multi-year projects that explore a single, continuous line of research, as I believe that this benefits our field tremendously.
Presumably those who snipe at this project have taken a long, deep look at the code and the underlying ideas.
My main concern or question about this line of research is that, offhand, it seems to me that much of the knowledge of the IA (intelligent agent) is hardwired into code. I'd like to see an explanation by the developer of underlying (declarative) knowledge representations, if any. Or at least some notion that the IA can modify its own knowledge and/or "learn" in some fashion.
Rules about the use of "I", "me", the verb to-be, and so on seem to be stuck into code, rather than developed as part of a more flexible representation.
Even so, I respect the notion that someone is pursuing a long term project along whatever path, as much is learned along the way. This contrasts sharply with most research (in the US at least), that is year-to-year, hand-to-mouth, survivie-to-the-next-funding-cycle, and so on.
Regards, Amnon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:40:28 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@textanalysis.com wrote:

Take a look at http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html

It would, were he as good a programmer as he claims to be, but he's not. The main talent he displays in public is self-promotion.

I did, many years ago when I first encountered him. All I remember about it was a profound sense of disbelief that anyone would claim that it represented any kind of breakthrough whatsoever, as it seemed trivial and obvious.

Not by Arthur - he's still banging the same nail he started with over twenty years ago (and, amusingly, claimed was 99% finished in June 1999).
He has nothing to teach anyone else in the field either, so it's pretty much been a total waste of time.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 1, 7:33am, David Mitchell

==============================================> = David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get

To me the projects we should be looking at are the following.
MOLTO - This is the EU language program. I have already referenced this. I would like to know in more detail how they are attacking multiple language translation without preferring one language as GT does (English). A Von Neumann language that would be implied by MOLTO's objectives is indeed the first step to AGI.
Web 3.0 - This implies the ability to put in links automatically. MOLTO will in fact produce links.
Mizar The basis of Mizar is Tarski-Grothendieck set theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%E2%80%93Grothendieck_set_theory
OpenMath http://www.omdoc.org/pubs/omdoc1.2.pdf
OpenMath is now convertible to Mizar http://mizar.org/trybulec65/18.pdf
Open CYC which deals with atoms
All these things are interconnected. I would like to see something which would interface up and connect to the above.
- Ian Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I feel I should add a few things.
1) Software engineers are adamant that the language is unimportant. For this reason I would like to see things written in the more mainstream languages like C+or Java. In fact in C++/Java the "class" can be used as a concept designator.
2) I have brought in Mathematics. In fact MOLTO aims to be able to translte mathematical statements. As AI consists in putting concepts into a formal basis all AI (ultimately) must be presentable in OpenMath. I must be able to do this with any statement even something like Politics which one does not associate with mathematics. I don't know whether MOLTO are aiming to base their "Grundsprache" on OpenMath.
3) The EU CANNOT give any language (except Mathematics and a generated Grundsprache) priority. GT gives English priority, everything is translated into English first.
- Ian Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.