MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 2010 August 25

Wed.25.AUG.2010 -- Coordinating InStantiate and WhoBe

A problem exists in the following man-machine dialogue, where "a spirit" is unwarrantedly treated as a "who".

Robot: Human: god

Robot: GOD WHO IS GOD Human: god is a spirit

Robot: A SPIRIT WHO IS SPIRIT Human:

The following report from the "En" English lexical array does not reveal to us why the word "WHO" was used at time point "t=433", but it does show an "mfn" gender flag set to one ("1") for masculine.

389 100 10 0 1 100 5 100 386 to GOD 393 100 10 0 1 100 5 100 390 to GOD 397 55 6 0 0 55 7 55 394 to WHO 400 66 0 2 0 66 8 58 398 to IS 404 100 10 0 1 100 5 100 401 to GOD 408 100 12 0 1 100 5 100 405 to GOD 411 66 0 2 0 66 8 58 409 to IS 413 1 15 0 0 1 1 1 412 to A 420 109 31 1 0 109 5 109 414 to SPIRIT 422 1 15 1 0 1 1 1 421 to A 429 109 36 1 0 109 5 109 423 to SPIRIT 433 55 0 1 0 55 7 55 430 to WHO 436 66 0 2 0 66 8 58 434 to IS 443 109 0 1 0 109 5 109 437 to SPIRIT t nen act num mfn fex pos fin aud

By forcing diagnostic reports on the values of "mfn" and "mfnflag", we tracked down a bugfix for the problem of WhoBe saying "WHO IS SPIRIT" instead of "WHAT IS SPIRIT". In the

formatting link
module, we added one (indicated) line of code.

mfn @ 1 = mfn @ 2 = OR IF \ masc or fem; 17aug2010 CR ." InSt: setting mfnflag to " mfn @ . \ 25aug2010 mfn @ mfnflag ! \ 17aug2010 THEN \ 17aug2010 mfn @ 0 = IF 0 mfnflag ! THEN \ test; 25aug2010

0 mfn ! \ Test code applies only to En array. 0 preset !

The AI properly began saying "WHAT IS SPIRIT", but it also began to leave out the word "IS" from the output of the WhoBe module, as shown in the dialog reproduced below.

Robot: Human: god

Robot: GOD WHO GOD Human: god is a spirit

Robot: SPIRIT WHAT IS SPIRIT Human:

It turns out that the WhoBe module was testing for a positive value of "mfn" or "mfnflag" as a pre-condition for saying "IS" after "WHO". Once we began resetting the "mfnflag" to zero in the

formatting link
stopped saying "IS" -- until we removed the IF-THEN precondition.

Wed.25.AUG.2010 -- Tweaking the Codebase

Now we have a problem because the user can answer a who-query with a sentence of input, but the AI does not regurgitate the knowledge upon receiving the same who-query.

Thurs.26.AUG.2010 -- Changelog Entry

The changelog entry on yesterday's upload of

formatting link
AI source code to the Web reads, "25aug10A.F retrieves knowledge gained from human users." The AI is becoming better able to ask a question about a new concept, comprehend the answer by storing it with the proper associations recorded among concepts, and respond with the assimilated knowledge when queried about the original concept. Curiously, the evolving albeit buggy AI responds differently to asking about a new concept with "who" and with "what", even when the same information provides the content of the response. To illustrate this point, we run the AI right now and we obtain the following dialog.

Robot: Human: god

Robot: GOD WHO IS GOD Human: god is spirit

Robot: SPIRIT WHAT IS SPIRIT Human: who is god

Robot: GOD IS A SPIRIT Human: what is god

Robot: A GOD BES SPIRIT Human:

The answers recorded above are different because different parts of the AI Mind software respond differently to who-queries and to what-queries. Meanwhile we inch closer to our next AI milestone

formatting link
demonstrating self-referential thought.

Mentifex

--

formatting link

Reply to
Mentifex
Loading thread data ...

Maybe you are building a counter example for the theorem of Archimedes in the AI field.

P.S. Paraphrazed the theorem would be: For each given goal and a minimum step size there is a maximum to the number of steps it takes to reach the goal.

And wouldn't you rather teach your mind how to count to 5 before talking about god/GOD? Do you yourself know what/who god/GOD is?

Groetjes Albert

--

Reply to
Albert van der Horst

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.