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 4,709 - 4,720 of 7,766
Posts 4,709 - 4,720 of 7,766
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...
Aischa has "huh" as a key phrase, so she can recognise when someone deosn't understand her and deal with their confusion, but she never seems to pick up on it. what's the likely reason for this?
it's probably getting spell-checked away by the AI Engine. Try adding a AIScript raw tag "<?PF raw; ?>" (without the quotes,) and that will force it to use the word exactly as entered. Also handy for personal names.
Sorry, you need magic fingers. I just type them in and twitch my nose...
But seriously, I don't know. I'm using MIE 6 running under WinXP, and it just sorta works without me having had to give it any thought...
But seriously, I don't know. I'm using MIE 6 running under WinXP, and it just sorta works without me having had to give it any thought...
Hmm, I think you probably want to tweak your codepage settings. If you're running XP, that would be in Control Panel>Regional and Language Options. Hmm, and ...
what the Hell?!? when I check mine it seems to have defaulted to Croatian!?!
I've reset it to United Kingdom, so here's the test:
-1
If there's no pointy brackets there, you'd better set your code page to Croatian...
what the Hell?!? when I check mine it seems to have defaulted to Croatian!?!
I've reset it to United Kingdom, so here's the test:
-1
If there's no pointy brackets there, you'd better set your code page to Croatian...
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar