Help an AI out

I love the idea of Artificial Intellegence. I want smart robots to take over the world... wait, no I don't... :p

Anyways, here's a knowedge base that learns by playing 20 questions:

www.20Q.net

It really goes up to 30, but whatever. Every game you play with it, it gets "smarter."

You think of a thing, and it tries to guess what it is. You can play with the same thing over and over, and see that it knows to ask better questions in time...

Give it a try, it's really interesting. :)

Why would i want to help an AI out? Havent you seen Wargames?

hmmm, very cool.

Originally posted by jay@af

Give it a try, it's really interesting. :)

I did and it is cool. AI is the future, like it or not.

It reminds me of the simple AI prog me and some friends made a few months ago. You have a convo with the comp and it learns words and context from the user. It remembers who you are, and gets offensive if you cock-off to it :D

"No, I want to play global thermonuclear war." :devil:

The original ELIZA program (state of the art natural language AI in 1966!):
http://chayden.net/chayden/eliza/Eliza.shtml

There are a bunch of web-based AI and expert systems listed here:
http://uk.dir.yahoo.com/Recreation/Games/Computer_Games/Internet_Games/Web_Games/Artificial_Intelligence/

This one is pretty amusing -
http://www.zabaware.com/webhal/uncen.html

:smoker2:

The problem with AI is the fact the machine is never self aware or able to reason through things on its own. Its always reacting (while in a sophisticated manner) and not instantiating actions or intuative leaps of logic.

However, with that said, there are some pretty damn cool programs out there that refine themselves for better reactions. Some of the ones listed are pretty slick.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
The problem with AI is the fact the machine is never self aware or able to reason through things on its own. Its always reacting (while in a sophisticated manner) and not instantiating actions or intuative leaps of logic. What makes you so sure that you are self aware and not just reacting in a sophisticated manner?
:smoker2:

oooh, yeah, when you think of it, we are reacting to everything. (especially to me coz when it comes to psychology im a behaviorist). Everything we learn and do is a result of an action. The future actions we take is due to the results of previous actions, so on, and so forth. If there was never an action that gave us the initiative to take an action, we wouldnt know WHAT to do....

But, im kind of against AI being self aware, theyre OUR machines, we dont want to become theirs. Call me paranoid if ya want, lol, i dont mind.

Hmmmm....

Soooo, then where did the first action originate to cause a reaction......how come everything leads back to damn "chickens & eggs"!?!?!!!??!!??!?

Originally posted by NismoDrifts
Hmmmm....

Soooo, then where did the first action originate to cause a reaction


exactly, old B. F. Skinner was once asked how his theory was able to account for him coming up with the theory, and to this day niether himself or any of those who follow him have been able to provide a suitable answer.

oooooh neat lil tidbit of info, i like :D

Originally posted by NismoDrifts
oooooh neat lil tidbit of info, i like :D

If you ever have a psych lecture ranting on about the wonders of behavorism, and how great Skinner was, yadda yadda yadda, then just ask the above question. "How does Behaviourism account for human creativity." Its simple, it can't. Meaning as a behaviourist you either have to deny the existance of human creativity, or radicaly alter behaviourism to allow for it.


Now when do I get an AI computer so I can just teach it some basic philosophy then go lie in the sun, read Hienlein and let it do all the work. :p

Behavior patterns dont explain intuative leaps. Newton for example defined created calculas (now you know who to blame) as a method of solving the mass of the earth. AI may be a reality someday, but they are going to be idiots. :D

Hahahha, yeah, im gonna do that actually, i have psych thursday :D we're doin neurotic behavior now, but we did a basic history of behaviorism just recently, so its still good.....

hmmm thats why i hate labelling every theory group strictly and rigidly and following it hardcore, i mean, behaviourism is good, but surely there are some hereditary traits, some freudianism, some instinctual stuff, and im really interested in Jung's ideas, but i think that only certain ideas of his are relevant, and that all of these along with things learned through punishment/rewards, are jumbled up into one big group to make us what we are.....which is what it all comes down to after i spend a lil time with every idea, im VERY indecisive if the people on this board cant already tell...

.....you wouldnt happen to know of any nice strict rigid names for that theory group would you? :p

True that to the newton deal :D

Yeah, i know, behaviourism doesnt really work, its just my fling of the week until i go on to something that makes more sense to me. Thats how i am, if you ever read my posts, youll see lots of lil sentences and blurbs that are out of place, trail off, dont make sense, etc. Coz by the time ive finished typing my posts, my opinions have changed, and im going back to add in and change stuff, or just trail off into long explanations. I use a lot of commas too, because of that.

Hmm..maybe if i werent self aware, id just have one reaction, and it would be the most logical reaction, without taking into account my own thoughts and feelings, and i wouldnt be so indecisive.......but that would be a boring life......but i wouldnt be aware of it....which is why it would be boring......woooohoooooo infinite loop ride *throws hands up* yaaaay!!!..... *slowly goes back to my corner*

Try getting a AIM bot. Those are fun.

hahah yeah

I think this whole argument about behavorism comes down to a much older argument about free-will vs. determinism. Laplace (18th century) - The present state of a system came directly from the previous state and will directly form the next state. "If a mind, at any given moment, could know all the laws and all the forces operating in nature and the respective positions and momenta of all its components, it could thereby know with certainty the future and the past of every entity."

The arguments against determinism are generally two-fold: 1)There is an obvious and observable free-will mechanism, clearly opposite to determinism. 2) Without free-will, there can be no objective moral code. And we must have a moral code. (I've set them up as straw-men, but the arguments do go along those lines.)

Counter args: 1) The free-will mechanism is not obvious to me. The number of variables in the deterministic equation can be so large as to be eternally incomprehensible. It's not necessarily free-will, just complex and irreducible determinism. 2) The moral code may well be an artifact of determinism. And I'm not so sure we really need (or can even discover) a truly objective moral code.

I like determinism - I really don't have any positive argument, but the negative arguments don't make much sense to me. But most of all it just makes me feel better than thinking it's all based on the whim of some natural or supernatural consciousness.

We're all just one huge, deterministic, trans-universal quantum wave function. (I like that sentence, it may go in my sig. :D )

:smoker2:

Yeah, i really agree with the counterarguments there....