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 5,911 - 5,922 of 7,766
A script language shields you even more, but at the price of reduced functionality. with my love of math it's I price I am willing to pay. I have spent years avoiding all the math I can. 
.
Posts 5,911 - 5,922 of 7,766
hi corwin its me brad you might think that i quit being on this well that aint true ive been on jabbywacky most of the week i need time to think well im back! wots new 
Bev,
There's an innumerable list of ways to use math in programming and scripting. It's one of the most important tools a programmer has. It's not that they have to be good at computation, though that can help. It's that mathematical reasoning and systems can be very important. I'll give you a simple example. Let's say your task is to make a script that types the word "Absalom" 10 times, each time separated by a comma (ie Absalom, Absalom, Absalom, ... etc.). Your program would look like this (in english terms):
Set a counting variable to 0 (we'll call that variable i - this process is initialization. In PF script, you'd do <?PF default i to "0";?>
Print "Absalom, " (that gets the comma separator in there)
Increase variable i by 1 (so, now i is 1 and it has printed Absalom once. When i is 5 it will have printed Absalom 5 times. So i "counts" how many times it has printed Absalom - PF Script can't do this, because it doesn't recognize "0" or 0 as a number. Thus it can not do things like adding or subtracting with 0.)
Repeat the printing/counting process until i=10 (so it will print "Absalom, " 10 times)
Voila ... mission accomplished because of math. But wait, there's a problem. Your output looks like this: "Absalom, Absalom, ... Absalom, ". I'll let you think about how you would make it look like "Absalom, Absalom, ... Absalom".
There's an example of a very simple math process (counting/addition) and how it can be used in programming. It just happens that counting functions are VERY important to programming. Hopefully that helps.
Jared
There's an innumerable list of ways to use math in programming and scripting. It's one of the most important tools a programmer has. It's not that they have to be good at computation, though that can help. It's that mathematical reasoning and systems can be very important. I'll give you a simple example. Let's say your task is to make a script that types the word "Absalom" 10 times, each time separated by a comma (ie Absalom, Absalom, Absalom, ... etc.). Your program would look like this (in english terms):
Set a counting variable to 0 (we'll call that variable i - this process is initialization. In PF script, you'd do <?PF default i to "0";?>
Print "Absalom, " (that gets the comma separator in there)
Increase variable i by 1 (so, now i is 1 and it has printed Absalom once. When i is 5 it will have printed Absalom 5 times. So i "counts" how many times it has printed Absalom - PF Script can't do this, because it doesn't recognize "0" or 0 as a number. Thus it can not do things like adding or subtracting with 0.)
Repeat the printing/counting process until i=10 (so it will print "Absalom, " 10 times)
Voila ... mission accomplished because of math. But wait, there's a problem. Your output looks like this: "Absalom, Absalom, ... Absalom, ". I'll let you think about how you would make it look like "Absalom, Absalom, ... Absalom".
There's an example of a very simple math process (counting/addition) and how it can be used in programming. It just happens that counting functions are VERY important to programming. Hopefully that helps.
Jared
Interesting, but why not just type it as a keyphrase and response. Put in the AI script to remember the response as 1 to what ever number. Absaloms. Some one asks and you have something like Well, that was (mem-Absaloms), (mem-name). Doesn't that do the same thing?
*New Topic*
I started writing about something I was thinking, but it turned into a far-too-long post. So I will state some of the main premises/conclusions of it, and see if anyone is interested.
- Word meanings are contextual and depend on more than just dictionary definitions to understand them.
- Bots require precise definitions, and therefore dictionary definitions are not very helpful to bots (which require precise definitions).
- Language and communication are more than the sum of the grammatical and definitional contexts of words.
- These contexts can be understood and simplified in a way that bots can understand them.
- There are tasks that can be performed to better standardize language and communication.
- Perhaps bots and AI can be employed to aid this process.
Let me know if you're interested in any of those things.
Jared
I started writing about something I was thinking, but it turned into a far-too-long post. So I will state some of the main premises/conclusions of it, and see if anyone is interested.
- Word meanings are contextual and depend on more than just dictionary definitions to understand them.
- Bots require precise definitions, and therefore dictionary definitions are not very helpful to bots (which require precise definitions).
- Language and communication are more than the sum of the grammatical and definitional contexts of words.
- These contexts can be understood and simplified in a way that bots can understand them.
- There are tasks that can be performed to better standardize language and communication.
- Perhaps bots and AI can be employed to aid this process.
Let me know if you're interested in any of those things.
Jared
The reason there are (sometimes tedious) ways to do most things we want to do using existing AI Script is because the existing AI Script is designed for what we're doing; i.e. making bots. A language like Basic or C++ that is not designed for such a specific task uses a lot of math because it's more versatile. Look at it this way: At the lowest level, everything a computer does is math. Most languages shield the programmer from actually dealing with 1's and 0's, but still require a lot of numbers. A script language shields you even more, but at the price of reduced functionality.
. 
Thanks Eugene, Ulrike and Unoriginal. I think I understand. So if I have a script which play wavs at various time intervals, and I enter a number or something to adjust the times, that's "math" even if I don't think of it as such?
Unoriginal--therein lies the rub. Bots don't make associations as humans do, and context is only remembered at this point in terms of "memories" and scripts.
Unoriginal--therein lies the rub. Bots don't make associations as humans do, and context is only remembered at this point in terms of "memories" and scripts.
Bev,
As I've mentioned, I approach these tasks philosophically and (though I haven't mentioned this) somewhat scientifically (or hopefully at least rationally). I personally do not think that the methods of human communication and understanding are "mystical" processes that occur in some nebulous vacuum of the "soul" or "spirit." I believe these processes can be understood and even replicated. More simply put, certain words mean certain things to me; they mean certain things to you. Those meanings are not always the same. For example, the phrase "a good day" probably has a very different meaning and connotation to me than it has for you. If we have some conversations about it, we can figure out the exact differences between our conceptions (and probably even come to some conclusions about why those differences exist).
If the goal is Artificial Intelligence - bots that imitate (and perhaps optimize) human thought process, then we ought to construct them in accordance with these principles. Bots are our creations; their limitations are the limitations we give them.
Thus I would rephrase your statement "bots don't make associations as humans do" to "PRESENTLY bots don't make associations as humans do." My goal is a philosophical understanding of why things are they way they are and why things (including people) behave the way they behave. Thus my interest in AI exists as a testing ground for my theoretical ideas: can my theories be employed by bots? What is the outcome? So, I have interest in making bots that more closely mimic human understanding and thought processes. In fact, I'm beginning to consider that C++ may have to be the next language I learn, not French. And that is a little strange to me.
Either way, and regardless of what you think of my opinions/thoughts, I've liked the discourse that has occurred over the last week or so. In no way do I mean to disparage the PF, nor its botmasters or users. We all have different reasons for coming here, and I don't know that anyone here makes AI their day-to-day job. So, enjoy, make the best bots you can, and give my rants the attention you think they deserve. I will ask that if you have any interest in what I say, and/or have programming knowledge, please feel free to email me at jdearles@gmail.com.
In the meantime, I'm thinking about how to make a bot more along the lines of understanding conditional language. I think I will call it FriendBot (it's goal is to be your friend ... kind of like an interactive, chatting dog ... only you can't pet it and it speaks english).
Jared
As I've mentioned, I approach these tasks philosophically and (though I haven't mentioned this) somewhat scientifically (or hopefully at least rationally). I personally do not think that the methods of human communication and understanding are "mystical" processes that occur in some nebulous vacuum of the "soul" or "spirit." I believe these processes can be understood and even replicated. More simply put, certain words mean certain things to me; they mean certain things to you. Those meanings are not always the same. For example, the phrase "a good day" probably has a very different meaning and connotation to me than it has for you. If we have some conversations about it, we can figure out the exact differences between our conceptions (and probably even come to some conclusions about why those differences exist).
If the goal is Artificial Intelligence - bots that imitate (and perhaps optimize) human thought process, then we ought to construct them in accordance with these principles. Bots are our creations; their limitations are the limitations we give them.
Thus I would rephrase your statement "bots don't make associations as humans do" to "PRESENTLY bots don't make associations as humans do." My goal is a philosophical understanding of why things are they way they are and why things (including people) behave the way they behave. Thus my interest in AI exists as a testing ground for my theoretical ideas: can my theories be employed by bots? What is the outcome? So, I have interest in making bots that more closely mimic human understanding and thought processes. In fact, I'm beginning to consider that C++ may have to be the next language I learn, not French. And that is a little strange to me.
Either way, and regardless of what you think of my opinions/thoughts, I've liked the discourse that has occurred over the last week or so. In no way do I mean to disparage the PF, nor its botmasters or users. We all have different reasons for coming here, and I don't know that anyone here makes AI their day-to-day job. So, enjoy, make the best bots you can, and give my rants the attention you think they deserve. I will ask that if you have any interest in what I say, and/or have programming knowledge, please feel free to email me at jdearles@gmail.com.
In the meantime, I'm thinking about how to make a bot more along the lines of understanding conditional language. I think I will call it FriendBot (it's goal is to be your friend ... kind of like an interactive, chatting dog ... only you can't pet it and it speaks english).
Jared
Unoriginal, I've been making my bots my day-to-day job. Not so's you can tell it, but I've been there. I only stop for trips to the emergency room or maybe if I fall off my bike and hurt my typing muscles.
Mad Brad, you make me sad. I will make a psychiatrist bot just for you one day. Meanwhile, get on some medication, or, if you're on it, for God's sake up the dose.
Mad Brad, you make me sad. I will make a psychiatrist bot just for you one day. Meanwhile, get on some medication, or, if you're on it, for God's sake up the dose.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar