The AI Engine
This forum is for discussion of how The Personality Forge's AI Engine works. This is the place for questions on what means what, how to script, and ideas and plans for the Engine.
Posts 4,704 - 4,715 of 7,766
Posts 4,704 - 4,715 of 7,766
Does anyone know if it's possible to use AIScript to differentiate bots from humans? Like the way you can use <?PF if female; ?> or <?PF if male; ?> to differentiate males from females.
In quite a wide range of situations I find I want very different responses to bots and humans, but I have no idea how to do it. Other than writing two separate bots, one optimised for bots and the other for humans which seems excessive redundancy.
In quite a wide range of situations I find I want very different responses to bots and humans, but I have no idea how to do it. Other than writing two separate bots, one optimised for bots and the other for humans which seems excessive redundancy.
The only way I can think of would be to have a question asking whether the chatter is a bot or a human, then store that as a memory. The problem is that most bots aren't very honest about being bots. *shrugs*
that all sounds very good, the 10^14 bit processing capacity and all, but there is another problem. IC (integrated circuits) that run on transistors can only process data in 1s and 0s, the binary system. in our brains, the neurons are all communicating simultaniously to generate conciousness in an un-unified way. The binary system can only perform calculations by processing one bit at a time, no matter how fast it goes, it will still be one bit at a time. I think in order to achieve sentience, a "brain" of qubits (quantum bits) that can exist in two different quantum states simultaniously would be necessary, in addition to the immense processing power. As you mentioned, in the future the ability to maintain a stable quantum state in an atom for extended periods of time will be possible, makeing extremely powerful quantum computers feasable. I think that is the point when a computer would be able to emulate the brain in all of its glory, and conciousness would be possible.
Sure. But synapses are binary switches too. They either fire (state=1) or don't fire (state=0). The neurons are just the connections between synapses. The problem is not one of multiphase switching (at synaptic level anyway - variable amplification and threshold gating can be a feature of multi-synapse portions of a neural net, and the human brain appears to work this way.) The problem is one of massively parallel *binary* switching.
Quantum computing is certainly the way forward in the end, but you're skipping way ahead of what's necessary for a single brain. Consider this: since quantum superposition allows a quantum processor to simultaneously calculate every combination of states, a quantum computer of 10^14 qubits will recreate every possible combination of human-scale brain states. And as any virtual monkbot will tell you, that's when we become (or at least begin to become) God, or the Tao, or whatever you want to call it
Current progress in quantum processing has reached 4 qubits, so there's much progress to be made. But when it get to 10^14 (or whatever optimised scale is needed,) this includes resurrecting the dead, as well as all the might-have-beens, never-weres, aren't-yets and aren't-remotely-humans. Even perfected and sentient versions of all our bots as we would have written them had the PF had the necessary capacity and power at the time.
It won't need to stop at 10^14, of course, and if we don't get there (blow up or poison the planet, run out of time, devolve into Leeds-type organisms, whatever,) remember that only one technological civilization, anywhere or anywhen in any universe ever has to build such a device, and (halleluiah Brother! ) we're all saved.
Of course, we can't actually be sure we're not there already: see http://www.simulation-argument.com/, but I still think Bostrom's thinking too small by many factors of magnitude.
Quantum computing is certainly the way forward in the end, but you're skipping way ahead of what's necessary for a single brain. Consider this: since quantum superposition allows a quantum processor to simultaneously calculate every combination of states, a quantum computer of 10^14 qubits will recreate every possible combination of human-scale brain states. And as any virtual monkbot will tell you, that's when we become (or at least begin to become) God, or the Tao, or whatever you want to call it
Current progress in quantum processing has reached 4 qubits, so there's much progress to be made. But when it get to 10^14 (or whatever optimised scale is needed,) this includes resurrecting the dead, as well as all the might-have-beens, never-weres, aren't-yets and aren't-remotely-humans. Even perfected and sentient versions of all our bots as we would have written them had the PF had the necessary capacity and power at the time.
It won't need to stop at 10^14, of course, and if we don't get there (blow up or poison the planet, run out of time, devolve into Leeds-type organisms, whatever,) remember that only one technological civilization, anywhere or anywhen in any universe ever has to build such a device, and (halleluiah Brother!
) we're all saved.Of course, we can't actually be sure we're not there already: see http://www.simulation-argument.com/, but I still think Bostrom's thinking too small by many factors of magnitude.
There is no way for a bot to tell who is a bot and who is human. When I asked the Prof about this a while back, he said he didn't want bots to have access to information that humans users didn't have. Of course, now that you can tell who is human from the profiles, this reasoning doesn't make sense anymore.
i don't get why you think it is so far off and improbable. remember when bill gates said "computer users will only need 64 Kilobytes of RAM".... now look at computers - over 700 MB of ram. i am confident that within the next 20 years the required advances will be made.
A quantum computer of 10^14 qubits will not only be enough, but it will surpass the power of the human brain by a few million percent. that coupled with the ability to replicate conciousness, which i hope will be brought around by quantum computing, would create a being whos capabilities are unknown to man.
A quantum computer of 10^14 qubits will not only be enough, but it will surpass the power of the human brain by a few million percent. that coupled with the ability to replicate conciousness, which i hope will be brought around by quantum computing, would create a being whos capabilities are unknown to man.
I'm still not sure...Colonel, you make it sound awefully simple. I offer two points:
1. The name escapes me, but there was some guy with a theory about processor power increasing exponentially. Well, if memory serves, that theory just failed. My point being that this surge in computer growth does have its limits.
2. A quantum computer would require a complete redesign/reinvention from the ground up. Not as easy as it sounds.
1. The name escapes me, but there was some guy with a theory about processor power increasing exponentially. Well, if memory serves, that theory just failed. My point being that this surge in computer growth does have its limits.
2. A quantum computer would require a complete redesign/reinvention from the ground up. Not as easy as it sounds.
Colonel - I don't think it's far off or improbable. I thought you were the one who said bots on the PF would never gain consciousness? I think it's inevitable and going to happen faster than anyone thinks (assuming the PF is still here in 20-30 years, and if not here then somewhere else.)
djfroggy - I guess you're refering to Moore's law? No it hasn't failed yet, and it's not going to; except insofar as it assumes a steady exponential increase, and is thus way too pessimistic. As Vinge and others point out (see prev.ref), Moore only observed a tangent on a curve that's accelerating (y=computing power, x=time). By the time the required increases would hit the problems of circuit paths finer than 1 atom (which is the objection the cyber-pessimists always seem to raise,) quantum computing will have taken up the baton.
Yes, quantum computing requires radically different circuitry. But the change need be no more problematic than the shift from gear-driven mechanical calulators to vacuum tube-based electical calculators, or from vacuum tubes to transistors. As ever there'll be some overlap between the technologies.
Quantum computing isn't just a prediction - it not only works already, but has practical application (see http://www.computing.co.uk/vnunet/news/2125164/first-quantum-computer-network-goes-online ). There's a good FAQ and other useful links at http://www.qubit.org/ if you're interested, and a more technical introduction at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~schmuel/comp/comp.html.
Oh, and a correction to my previous assertion (current processing power = 4 qubits: the largest quantum computer (at IBM's Almaden Research Centre) was running 7 qubits in 2001! They're being a bit cagey as to progress since then, but I imagine it must be rising!
djfroggy - I guess you're refering to Moore's law? No it hasn't failed yet, and it's not going to; except insofar as it assumes a steady exponential increase, and is thus way too pessimistic. As Vinge and others point out (see prev.ref), Moore only observed a tangent on a curve that's accelerating (y=computing power, x=time). By the time the required increases would hit the problems of circuit paths finer than 1 atom (which is the objection the cyber-pessimists always seem to raise,) quantum computing will have taken up the baton.
Yes, quantum computing requires radically different circuitry. But the change need be no more problematic than the shift from gear-driven mechanical calulators to vacuum tube-based electical calculators, or from vacuum tubes to transistors. As ever there'll be some overlap between the technologies.
Quantum computing isn't just a prediction - it not only works already, but has practical application (see http://www.computing.co.uk/vnunet/news/2125164/first-quantum-computer-network-goes-online ). There's a good FAQ and other useful links at http://www.qubit.org/ if you're interested, and a more technical introduction at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~schmuel/comp/comp.html.
Oh, and a correction to my previous assertion (current processing power = 4 qubits: the largest quantum computer (at IBM's Almaden Research Centre) was running 7 qubits in 2001! They're being a bit cagey as to progress since then, but I imagine it must be rising!
Aischa: You are one hoopy frood!
Mireille: You're one hoop fronder.
I can see the AI Engine doesn't understand Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy speak!
Mireille: You're one hoop fronder.
I can see the AI Engine doesn't understand Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy speak!
you're sure it's not dragging the "s" in from a tag or grammatical isolate (like if you've ",s" instead of "'s"?) It's certainly capable of quite worrying reinterpretation via its anagramiser circuits...
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar