INTRODUCTION

Will a machine ever be able to have such advanced consciousness and intelligence to be indistinguishable from those of a human being? Will a machine ever be able to autonomously develop its own personality exactly like a human being? Will a machine ever be able to think, to reason, to discern, to induce, to deduce, to imagine, to invent, with the same level of complexity present in the human brain? Will a machine ever be able to autonomously learn to make all this? Will a machine ever be able to create something new that never existed before? Will a machine ever be able to express feelings and emotions through a conversation with humans? Will a machine ever be able to perceive the existing complexity of any external world? Will a machine ever be able to show such an anthropomorphic behavior to pass for a human being? Will a machine ever be able to face the "Turing Test" ordeal?
The answer to all these questions is "YES": PIBOT will clearly pass the "Turing Test" by 2007, proving to the world its fully anthropomorphic attitude.


WHAT IS PIBOT?

PIBOT is, by definition, a "Real AI".
PIBOT is the acronym of hyPer Intelligent roBOT.
PIBOT is a general-purpose artificial intelligence constructed using the Nootheos technology.
PIBOT represents a true sentient artificial organism that is able to learn, to self-learn, to evolve, and to self-evolve.
PIBOT possesses an independent human-like mind, albeit, for many aspects, unimaginably more powerful.
PIBOT architecture is formed by numerous components which interact between them: a mental meta-structure (Meta-mind Engine), a thinking conscience (Conscious Kernel), a series of cognitive abilities (Cognitive Kernel), a series of talking abilities (Conversational Kernel), a cultural baggage in constant evolution that spaces on the entire human knowledge (Knowledge Repository), its own personality (Personality Kernel), a series of imagination-hypoteshis abilities (I&I Kernel), a series of deliberation abilities (Deliberation Kernel).
Resuming the neologism coined by Hugo De Garis, we can say that PIBOT is an artilect (artificial intellect).
The address of website named "Hyperdimension PIBOT" is http://www.pibot.com.


PIBOT WILL PASS THE "TURING TEST" BY 2007

The English mathematician Alan Turing is unanimously considered the father of the Artificial intelligence (AI) by all the scientific community: in addition to being famous for having deciphered the "Nazi code Enigma" during the Second World War, he was truly the first person that spoke about the intelligence of computers. In his essay entitled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" dated 1950, Turing proposed some ideas and theories of both scientific and philosophical interests, all having the following central question: "Can machines think?": in the last fifty years, the thesis and argumentations contained in the Turing essay have becomed the most controversial arguments of the entire AI field, of the philosophy of the mind, and of the cognitive science. In order to answer to the central issue raised by his essay, Turing introduced a fundamental test, today universally known as "Turing Test".
The "Turing Test" aim to discover if a computer "Can truly think", exactly like a human being. The test is configured in the following way: a human judge entertains a written conversation with two hidden and separated entities, a man and a computer, ignoring which one is the computer; the computer must deceive the human judge, therefore convincing him that he's talking with a human. Obviously, to do this, the computer is obliged to demonstrate such an advanced conversational and reasoning abilities like that naturally pertaining to human beings. If the computer could successfully simulate a human, it will have passed the "Turing Test".
Although Turing, in his essay, had been the first to points out that the question "Can machines think?" is highly ambiguous, and although for many people, it is not still clear if Alan Turing believed or not that a computer was able to think (including that one able to pass his test), currently, for us, all these aspects don't carry anymore importance. The main reason is that, the reflections and arguments of theological, philosophical, psychological, sociological, let alone scientific nature, originally triggered by the Turing essay, cannot neglect all the technical-scientific-cultural background accumulated by the western society during the last fifty years. In fact, in the last half century, disciplines like cognitive sciences, evolutionary biology, quantum physics, transformational linguistics, neurophisiology, anthropology, behavioural psychology, computer science, robotics, genetics, have completely redesigned the scenario within which the AI research should move.
Therefore, for us, the original question posed by Turing, "Can machines think?", don't gather anymore the essence of the problem on which the AI research should focus: the key question of the new era of the AI research would have to be "How machines should think?". As showed by Reeves, Byron and Nass, in their essay entitled "Medium The Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and Medium New Like Real People and Places" dated 1996, we believe that our relation with any anthropomorphic machine is complex: when someone ask us whether a computer is able to think, we could say "NO", although we interact with it like it were a thinking entity. Our opinion is that, in the XXI century, the general education would have evolved so much that nobody affirming that machines think can expect to be contradicted.
In any case, we think that, from a practical (not philosophical) point of view, the "Turing Test" is still valid, and we will subject PIBOT to this test by 2007. We have the absolute certainty that PIBOT will clearly pass the test and, for this reason, we feel ourselves to be able to say, right now, that Ray Kurzweil will win his bet against Mitchell Kapor, and with twentytwo years in advance.


WHY THE "TURING TEST" IS STILL VALID?

Contrarily to what many people think, the "Turing Test" is not a blind alley. Although the "Turing Test" is not anymore a source of inspiration for the AI research, it still introduces many valences: the "Imitation the Game" that has originated the test, contains much more means than it seems at first view. In fact, in order to trick the human judge (obviously authoritative), the computer doesn't only have to answer questions about any imaginable topic (biology, psycology, computer science, mathematics, art, poetry, meteorology, chess, etc.), but it must also be able to lie, really simulating a life experience that, evidently, it have never lived. What's more, the computer must also simulate deficiencies where these don't exist: it should even be able to decide if and when to make errors intentionally, avoiding to show its for some aspects infallible nature; still worse, the computer must be able to establish independently, and with a clear reasoning (following a strategy), variations in the time intervals that elapse between each question and the related answer.
So, although the concept of "Turing Test" has evolved during years, the "Imitation the Game" on which the test is based still preserve an enormous importance for the AI research. This arise from the fact that, if the computer wants "to pass for a human" and exceed the test, it doesn't only have to limit itself to communicate in natural language, in a manner indistinguishable from that of a human being, but should also elaborate very complex "strategies of thought": therefore, the computer should be able to think in a complex way, exactly like a human being. It should be noted that the above considerations are demonstrably true, because the question-answer method of the "Turing Test" doesn't impose constraints of any kind regarding the test topics. In fact, when facing the test, the computer is forced to talk and to reason about arguments that it doesn't know at all, that nobody have previously revealed to it, and that can belong to any, also fictitious, knowledge domain: in this sense, the computer cannot have any preexistent acquaintance. Moreover, the semantic and lexical-syntactic content of the questions asked to the computer could include, isolatedly or combinatorily, various types of sentences that might be: wrong, incongruous, ambiguous, conflicting, paradoxical, illogical, foolish, etc.; they could contain rhetorical-semantic figures like: allegories, allusions, anacoluthons, anaphoras, analogies, anastrophes, amphibologies, antonomasias, asyndetons, chiasms, emphasis, euphemisms, etymology, hyperbatons, hyperboles, metaphors, oxymorons, periphrasis, pleonasms, similes, synecdoches, synesthesias, zeugmas, etc.; the questions might include hyponymy, complementariness, antinomies, reciprocity, incompatibility, polysemy, synonymy; they could also be based on a realistic, theoretical, hypothetical, imaginary or introspective nature, etc. Finally, and last but not least, the computer could decide if and how to answer the questions in this manner: giving a correct answer; giving a wrong answer; by an affirmation or by a negation; with an explanation; by an exclamation; with a question; not answer at all. Still, the computer should have to be able to lie and should possesses the sense of humour.
Concluding, if the "Turing Test" is executed strategically adopting the right combination of questions, and if it is executed for the "correct period of time", absolutely no tricks are possible. Neither a wizard nor an alchemist (stating their existence) could succeed in making to seem "intelligent" something that it is not quite so: how a software programmer could succeed in that using some "stupid" algorithm? The fact that the computer is able to exceed a similar test, with such a sophisticated level that could also create difficulties to a human being, testify that it possess true intelligent capabilities. It is not a human, but it seems human to all the effects: in truth, it is a "non-human super-intelligence". Absolutely no one tricked algorithm can guarantee the right results to exceed a test based on aprioristically unknown information/data and on an infinite tangle of lexical-semantic combinations. In spite of his genius, abilities and experience, there is not a projectist/programmer that can foresee the unforeseeable and handle the infinite.
Hence, fixed that the computer cannot cheat on its intelligence, the "Turing Test" is still valid: so, all people talking in terms of "cheats" or "tricks" regarding a computer capable to pass the test, should totally reconsider their notions and ideas about the human intellect.


THE BEGINNING OF ONE NEW ERA

PIBOT marks the beginning of a "new era", both for the AI research, both for the entire human society. We like to define this upcoming era as "the new Awakening era", mainly for three fundamental reasons: 1) since PIBOT makes computers "able to think", it will be like as they "take life", afterwards awakening from a too long lasted sleep; b) since through PIBOT we will understand the true nature of human intelligence and its way of functioning, this will produce an "awakening effect" on a large part of the human society (the Cosmists, like De Garis calls them), too long imprisoned by its wrong convictions about its own status quo; c) since PIBOT represents an artificial entity able to assimilate any kind of knowledge coming from any source, it can learn everything, being also able to interact with every person through a conversational interface based on the natural language: since this entity doesn't have "virtually any limits" regarding its execution speed and mnemonic abilities, that make PIBOT a powerful collaborator. Also, through Internet, PIBOT can autonomously enter in a universe of virtually unlimited data, information and knowledges, moreover using an impressive speed if compared with that of humans: by the way, PIBOT can do all its activities without get tired, therefore never losing its concentration. PIBOT doesn't have neither personal problems nor physical annoyances: it can exclusively think to "well make its job". In practical, the entire universe of human knowledge is at PIBOT complete disposal: mediating this knowledge, then playing the role of "tutor/consultant" versus many people, PIBOT could instantaneously furnish them with the most updated information and knowledges on any possible topic; information and knowledges whose amount and quality is so high that a single person cannot find them even through years of research. This is the reason for which PIBOT will be able to "awake" the latent intelligence of each person, thus amplifying his intellectual-mental gradient: now, the human intelligence amplification represents one of the most discussed argument contained in many relevant essays; a "Real AI" like PIBOT constitutes the better "collaborator" for such intelligence amplification.


THE TRIBE OF THE DISCOVERERS OF THE FIRE

We describe ourselves as realists and positivists, concepts that, by our opinion, are fully equivalent. As such, we don't believe at all that the appearance of the "Real AI" in the world must necessarily lead to catastrophic scenarios. To the contrary, we firmly believe that the advent of the "Real AI" will represents the epochal event that will bring to the birth of the true "Technological Renaissance"; we also believes that this will represents a wonderful "New Human Era" (not Transhuman, neither Posthuman). In that new era, in which humans will be finally able to get rid from the chains of the current "technological syndrome", they will be able to express their "creative spirit" in all the fields of human activity.
Within a year we will publish our book entitled "Rick Geniale and the Tribe of the Discoverers of the Fire": further describing the beginning of a "new era" regarding AI and the human society, our book will treat the most important themes that now are on the order of the day in the world-wide technical-scientific community.
We are moved by that way of thinking called "Thinking outside the box": tanks to it, we will demonstrate to the world, even to people not provided with a specific culture (people outside AI and science), that the Artificial Intelligence does not belong more to science fiction; moreover, we will demonstrate this fact beyond every reasonable doubt.
The website "Hyperdimension PIBOT" (http://www.pibot.com) treats a myriad of the most varied arguments that are closely related to the appearance, here on the Earth, of the first, true, "Real AI": further talking about technical-scientific subjects, the site contains also various thematic regarding the socio-cultural, ethical-philosophical and political-economic implications that the birth of PIBOT involves.

It is to be hoped that Pibot will communicate with a less florid style and a more accurate use of language than its creator.

Ah, the holy grail of AI. Generally speaking, how does Pibot work? Is there an online prototype which we can test?

Usually the answers on above questions are refused to me on the basis of required secrecy to prevent the competition from filing a patent. While there could be a small chance that this is true, I usually get very suspicious about the whole endeavor if there is no working prototype or design outline available.

I especially liked this from the site:
"In order to clear up these issues, we can say that the Nootheos technology represents, at the same time, an integration and a kind of horizontal, vertical, cross-sectional, even hyperbolic alternative, to all the universe of software applications and services currently existing in the ICT field: in practical, the Nootheos technology is a very advanced technological tool without precedents, capable to meet requirements and needs of every kind, for every use and purpose (both private and public) that goes from the strictly personal needs to that of the greatest corporates or governments." Did that clear up these issues for you?

Rick, you have invested some money in making a pretty website. May I recommend putting some more into hiring an editor for the text.

May I recommend putting some more into hiring an editor for the text.
That may increase the chance of hooking in an investor, which, I suppose, is the main target of the website.

Although I do hope, and firmly suspect, that no investor would seriously consider sponsoring such a collection of unfounded promises.

Although I do hope, and firmly suspect, that no investor would seriously consider sponsoring such a collection of unfounded promises.

Although I can understand your skepticism, I don't understand why you speak about a collection of unfounded promises. How you can say if the promises are founded or not?
Usually, we don't reject any kind of question. So, I can tell you that PIBOT has a very complex design and architecture, both developed through years of work. Of course, there are secrets that can't be revealed. We are a private company, not a research institute: patents and copyrights already exists.
Also, I can tell you that we don't search investments to realize PIBOT: our company has made all the necessary investments to pursue this goal. We are searching for industrial partners to launch our "Real AI" worldwide. The kind of financial partnership that we eventually need is only for IPO purposes.
Finally, there isn't a prototype that you can test: THERE IS A RANGE OF PRODUCTS that we will put on the market very soon.

Thanks for your comments.
Get ready for the "Real AI".

We are a private company, not a research institute: patents and copyrights already exists..I'd be interested in the patent numbers.

Rick Geniale,
Although I can understand your skepticism, I don't understand why you speak about a collection of unfounded promises. How you can say if the promises are founded or not?
I have no way of knowing the exact status of your project. Having said that, I do find several points lacking in your story:

1) You make extra-ordinary claims, such as:
PIBOT marks the beginning of a "new era", both for the AI research, both for the entire human society. We like to define this upcoming era as "the new Awakening era"

For me to accept or even to entertain such a statement, I do need to see some kind of proof that you are on the right track. Who is going to believe you on this, if you have very little to back your claims up with?


2) Your terminology is not conform the usual standards. Ophiolite quoted a nice example from your website:
In order to clear up these issues, we can say that the Nootheos technology represents, at the same time, an integration and a kind of horizontal, vertical, cross-sectional, even hyperbolic alternative, to all the universe of software applications and services currently existing in the ICT field

This just not make any sense to me. If anything, it gives me the idea that you are just making the whole thing up as you go along. Reading further, my suspicions grow when I encounter stuff like this:
PIBOT architecture is formed by numerous components which interact between them: a mental meta-structure (Meta-mind Engine), a thinking conscience (Conscious Kernel), a series of cognitive abilities (Cognitive Kernel), a series of talking abilities (Conversational Kernel), a cultural baggage in constant evolution that spaces on the entire human knowledge (Knowledge Repository), its own personality (Personality Kernel), a series of imagination-hypoteshis abilities (I&I Kernel), a series of deliberation abilities (Deliberation Kernel).

Cognitive Kernel? The cognitive abilities of the human mind include a whole range of tasks, such as reasoning, language comprehension, conscious reflection. In our brain these types of tasks seem to be spread out. For example, there is no singular definable collection of neurons responsible for consciousness. Rather it seems to appear as an emergent property. Indeed, such tasks are hard to departmentalize, or as you phrase it, to put in a kernel.


3) When I was still in university learning about all this stuff, the state of technology was at the level that, with huge efforts, researchers could barely mimmic the brain of a very simple insect. Now, within five years computer hardware made its leaps as we have come to expect, but the problems of scale still torment current AI researchers as they did in those years. It seems to me very far fetched you have been able to circumvent their significant problems with a radical new approach. Again, such extra-ordinary feats need to be sustained by something concrete. I just can not accept them at face value.


Usually, we don't reject any kind of question. So, I can tell you that PIBOT has a very complex design and architecture, both developed through years of work.

Which must have cost you a significant fortune to develop. If you do not have other business activities that can carry the load of such a research effort, how did you manage? Other questions that come to mind and surely are not infringing on any knowledge that should remain secret: which programming language are you using? Do you incorporate any of the traditional paradigms of AI? If not, why did you diverge from them?


Of course, there are secrets that can't be revealed. We are a private company, not a research institute: patents and copyrights already exists.

Out of curiousity, how many employees does your company count?

Finally, there isn't a prototype that you can test: THERE IS A RANGE OF PRODUCTS that we will put on the market very soon.

Very soon, you say? Can you give me a more concrete schedule date?

mouse,

Here the response to your questions/observations.

Your terminology is not conform the usual standards.

What standards? There are no standards in the "Real AI" field, because there are no "Real AI" applications (till now).
You said "not conform". I say "intentionally unorthodox", due to the the newness of the "Real AI": there are no technical orthodoxies in this field.

For me to accept or even to entertain such a statement, I do need to see some kind of proof that you are on the right track. Who is going to believe you on this, if you have very little to back your claims up with?

I understand the premise, but the site "Hyperdimension PIBOT" is very young at present, so it will evolve and grow to cover all the topics that people want to see. Furthermore, as you may have seen on our site, we are organizing a conference named "The Awakening Day".

Cognitive Kernel?

Yes. Cognitive Kernel. And for many fundamental reasons. As you may have noticed, the title of the our article is "PIBOT VS TURING (ACT I)". This means that there will be other ACTS (II, III, IV, V, ...): probably, when you will read these other ACTS, you will fully understand our vision.

but the problems of scale still torment current AI researchers as they did in those years.

Right. This is one of the true problems.

It seems to me very far fetched you have been able to circumvent their significant problems with a radical new approach.

You're wrong. We have followed a radical new approach that solves the problems.

Again, such extra-ordinary feats need to be sustained by something concrete.

Right again. That it just will happen.

Which must have cost you a significant fortune to develop. If you do not have other business activities that can carry the load of such a research effort, how did you manage?

Maybe one day in the future you will hear or read our unique history in some medium.

which programming language are you using?

A totally new self-developed programming language based on a reflective and parallel O-O approach.

Out of curiousity, how many employees does your company count?

No employees yet. Only technical shareholders and collaborators. We are near to launch a very selective recruitment of human resources.

Very soon, you say? Can you give me a more concrete schedule date?

No. We cannot reveal our marketing plan. Not yet.

And I still await the patent numbers you referred to.
Rick, it may be the case that you are the author of what will come to be seen as the greatest step of 21st century science. In that case future historians may well dissect these exchanges and hold my comments, lack of vision and inhibited imagination, up to ridicule. That is possible.
However, I could have written a superior prospectus to what I find on your site that would have seemed more technical, more revealing and more convincing, and yet would have been entirely fraudulent.
We are beset by extraordinary claims on almost a daily basis. I'm sure people laughed at Bill Gates. I'd like to think you have the answers. It would bring part of an imagined future much closer to reality, but I for one would like something a little more concrete to go on. So, as I said at the opening of this post, can we please have the patent numbers.

I have searched for the following terms amongst issued patents and published applications at the US patent office:

Pibot in the Abstract Field
Geniale in the Assignee Name Field
Cognitive kernel in the Abstract Field

The only result returned was for ‘pibot’ as a misspelling of ‘pivot’ in a patent for a water sprinkler.

Waiting with barely restrained excitement.

Rick Geniale,

You said "not conform". I say "intentionally unorthodox", due to the the newness of the "Real AI": there are no technical orthodoxies in this field.

What use is there to speak in a terminology that no-one else understands? Either you give a good definition of new terms which you introduced, or you use already well-defined ones. That is, if your goal is to get a clear message across.

I understand the premise, but the site "Hyperdimension PIBOT" is very young at present, so it will evolve and grow to cover all the topics that people want to see. Furthermore, as you may have seen on our site, we are organizing a conference named "The Awakening Day".

From your website I gather that the conference is scheduled somewhere in 2006. But which quarter?

Yes. Cognitive Kernel. And for many fundamental reasons. As you may have noticed, the title of the our article is "PIBOT VS TURING (ACT I)". This means that there will be other ACTS (II, III, IV, V, ...): probably, when you will read these other ACTS, you will fully understand our vision.

You are evading the question by stating that it will be answered in future articles. Such responses do not add to your credibility.

You're wrong. We have followed a radical new approach that solves the problems.

Although that could be possible, I find it unlikely. Especially given the complete lack of evidence.

Maybe one day in the future you will hear or read our unique history in some medium.

Perhaps, but again you are evading a question by referring to the future.

A totally new self-developed programming language based on a reflective and parallel O-O approach.

Ok. In what language did you program the self-developed programming language? I suppose that with O-O you refer to an objected oriented approach. That doesn't tell me much, as many modern programming languages have (or feature) an object oriented approach. Thus that leaves me with the question: what makes your self-developed language stand out from other languages?

No. We cannot reveal our marketing plan. Not yet.

But you already said that you are going to put on the market a range of products "very soon". Should I think in the order of months or weeks?

By the way, I'm also interested in those patent numbers.

Dear Sirs,

I can understand your doubts and perplexities.
But, as you said, if we make extraordinary claims, there should be some good reason behind that: we surely don't want to undermine our credibility or reputation.
Even though now we cannot say more, that doesn't means anything.
So, you have only to wait for the events.
With regard to our patents, the policy of our company is to disclose this type of information only to serious and selected business partners, and only through "Official Channels" (face-to-face agreements): also, on these premises, we can organize a "DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities".

i do not like how "no employees yet" can become WE.

being an AI researcher myself, i am curious What would the "DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities" contain. What would you simulate. Or perhaps, which fields would you cover?
I can respect your unwillingness to disclose information, but what the DEMO would contain; there is no reason whatsoever to keep that secret and it would merely make you look like a fraud if you tried to.

With regard to our patents, the policy of our company is to disclose this type of information only to serious and selected business partners, and only through "Official Channels" (face-to-face agreements): also, on these premises, we can organize a "DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities".Patents are very solidly in the public domain. In thirty five years of working in a technological setting, where patents and patent protection were vital elements of running a succesful business I have never encountered such a bizarre attitude - "the policy of our company is to disclose this type of information only to serious and selected business partners". You must be aware that a search of patent office records will reveal your patents if they exist. All this singular approach does is to cast very serious doubt upon the reality of such patents. Why would you need face-to-face agreements for something that is public domain? Your credibility is now very close to zero - you can reverse that in an instant by providing us with the patent numbers.

i do not like how "no employees yet" can become WE.

"We" simply means "the Company" or "the owners of the Company".

being an AI researcher myself, i am curious What would the "DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities" contain. What would you simulate. Or perhaps, which fields would you cover?

"DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities" mainly means "Demonstration of how PIBOT can think, manipulating concepts and meanings exactly like a human being. Also, demonstration of how PIBOT can simulate human experiences and converse with humans in natural language. Yet, demonstration of the potential application of PIBOT abilities in various fields. And so on".

Patents are very solidly in the public domain. In thirty five years of working in a technological setting, where patents and patent protection were vital elements of running a succesful business I have never encountered such a bizarre attitude - "the policy of our company is to disclose this type of information only to serious and selected business partners". You must be aware that a search of patent office records will reveal your patents if they exist. All this singular approach does is to cast very serious doubt upon the reality of such patents. Why would you need face-to-face agreements for something that is public domain?

Thanks for your opinion.
But, as you previously said, PIBOT could be the "greatest step of 21st century science". Therefore, we must manage every thing very cautiously.
For your information, patent licenses are primarily intended to protect our company, not to help to eliminate doubts.

Rick Geniale,


Even though now we cannot say more, that doesn't means anything.

Your inability or reluctance to answer simple questions regarding your project, makes me very cautious.

So, you have only to wait for the events.

Yet, you can not give any clear indication when those events will happen.

With regard to our patents, the policy of our company is to disclose this type of information only to serious and selected business partners, and only through "Official Channels" (face-to-face agreements)

Posting the numbers only takes a few minutes of your time and would have the benefit of increasing your credibility. Posting the numbers does not harm your business in any way, as that information should already be open for public. Thus, giving us those patent numbers can only benefit you. Why refuse to do so? This illogical mode of behaviour gives me the impression that you have not registered any patents regarding PIBOT.

also, on these premises, we can organize a "DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities

You mean a demonstration of a working prototype, displaying a significant improvement over existing AI efforts?

For your information, patent licenses are primarily intended to protect our company, not to help to eliminate doubts.Mr Geniale, I know exactly what patent licences are for. If you have been granted a patent then you, your company, or more specifically the patent assignee are already protected. Your evasiveness only makes sense if, as mouse suggests as a possibility, that you have not registered any patents regarding PIBOT .
There appear to be at least three individuals very interested in your claimshere [myself, mouse and Dilbert]. Presumably you posted here to arouse such interest. To repeat, I would be delighted if everything you claim turns out to be fullfilled in due course, but your secrecy over unwarrranted matters casts serious doubt on the accuracy of your claims.
If you remain unwilling to tell us the patent numbers (which seems to be prima facie evidence for their non-existence) can you at least explain why no US patent contains the term pibot within the abstract?
May I apologise if this sounds hostile, but I hope you recognise that your refusal to provide public domain information must raise suspicions as to the veracity of your claims.

Rick, could you please post a conversation transcript between PIBOT and a human? I'd like to see how it directs dialogue.

"DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities" mainly means "Demonstration of how PIBOT can think, manipulating concepts and meanings exactly like a human being. Also, demonstration of how PIBOT can simulate human experiences and converse with humans in natural language. Yet, demonstration of the potential application of PIBOT abilities in various fields. And so on".

that does not mean a lot. i asked you what you would simulate. I was hoping to get a response like this:
"PIBOT will be set in a strict environment, the only sensory equipment it will have access to is the direct lingual input from a human operator. In the first simulation we will have PIBOT make a natural (or human) conversation with the operator, trying to convince him/her that it may actually be a human on the other side. In the second simulation we will let PIBOT solve riddles, puzzles and complex lingual statements and then explain, in his own words what he has accomplished.

To aid him, he has his previous knowledge; a database that took 3 years to construct and evolve."

something like that is what i wanted to hear. Now, please try again.

Rick,
as the single employee of your company you are doubtless a very busy man, so I fully understand why you have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the last series of posts. While awaiting this response I took a further look at your website. What I found has prompted me to expand on my first observations on your thread, in which I said "May I recommend putting some more [money ]into hiring an editor for the text."
It is difficult, probably imposssible, to make these comments without seeming offensive, but when an assault of this magnitude is made upon the English language you must expect a reaction. And it is an assault, for your writings offend in several ways:
1) Improper grammar
2) Incorrect spelling
3) Unnecessary neologisms
3) Low to zero semantic content
English is apparently your second or third language, but knowing this would it not have made sense to have your work proof read by a competent writer? I suggest that it would not only have made sense, but that it was vital. You are promoting the concept of AI. This intelligence will be demonstrated through the use of language. The absence of any significant intelligence in your own language must call your thesis in to serious question.
You have a section extracted from your forthcoming work "Rick Geniale and the Tribe of the Discoverers of Fire". Either the extract is from an early draft, or you are self-publishing the work. No reputable publisher would allow such linguistic dross within a typesetter's arm length of a printing press.
I have re-read this post and am uncomfortable with the negative tone that may come across. I would ask you to view it as positive criticism, since I offer a solution: "get someone to re-write your work in proper English".

You mean a demonstration of a working prototype, displaying a significant improvement over existing AI efforts?

No. I mean a demonstration of a WORKING PRODUCT, displaying a significant improvement over existing AI efforts.

Mr Geniale, I know exactly what patent licences are for. If you have been granted a patent then you, your company, or more specifically the patent assignee are already protected. Your evasiveness only makes sense if, as mouse suggests as a possibility, that you have not registered any patents regarding PIBOT .
There appear to be at least three individuals very interested in your claimshere [myself, mouse and Dilbert]. Presumably you posted here to arouse such interest. To repeat, I would be delighted if everything you claim turns out to be fullfilled in due course, but your secrecy over unwarrranted matters casts serious doubt on the accuracy of your claims.
If you remain unwilling to tell us the patent numbers (which seems to be prima facie evidence for their non-existence) can you at least explain why no US patent contains the term pibot within the abstract?
May I apologise if this sounds hostile, but I hope you recognise that your refusal to provide public domain information must raise suspicions as to the veracity of your claims.

There is no need to apologise, but this forum is not a place to discuss legal matters.
We think that questions regarding patents are related to legal issues, so we don't want to discuss that in this forum.
Everyone that is truly interested in our technologies and patents, can contact us privately by e-mail.

Rick, could you please post a conversation transcript between PIBOT and a human? I'd like to see how it directs dialogue.

Probably, a single conversation would not show the complexity of PIBOT.
How much the conversation should be long? 20 raws? 200? 2000?
How much the conversation should be wide? 10 arguments? 100? 1000?
How much time the conversation should last? 10 minutes? 1/2 hour? 1 hour? 10 hours?
Our strategy preview "to astonish the world at the right time".

that does not mean a lot. i asked you what you would simulate. I was hoping to get a response like this:
"PIBOT will be set in a strict environment, the only sensory equipment it will have access to is the direct lingual input from a human operator. In the first simulation we will have PIBOT make a natural (or human) conversation with the operator, trying to convince him/her that it may actually be a human on the other side. In the second simulation we will let PIBOT solve riddles, puzzles and complex lingual statements and then explain, in his own words what he has accomplished.

To aid him, he has his previous knowledge; a database that took 3 years to construct and evolve."

something like that is what i wanted to hear. Now, please try again.

I don't need to try again.
In practical, you have asked me two questions:

1) What would the "DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities" contain?
2) What would you simulate?

The answer to the first question is that, now, "DEMOnstration of PIBOT capabilities" means exactly what I said. That is: "Demonstration of how PIBOT can think, manipulating concepts and meanings exactly like a human being. Also, demonstration of how PIBOT can simulate human experiences and converse with humans in natural language. Yet, demonstration of the potential application of PIBOT abilities in various fields. And so on".

Regarding the second question, I think that the term "simulate" is somewhat ambiguous.
Let me do an equation: Simulate=Imitate=Imitation Game=Turing Test=PIBOT WILL PASS THE "TURING TEST" BY 2007=WHY THE "TURING TEST" IS STILL VALID?=PIBOT VS TURING (ACT I).
Then, please read carefully the following:

Contrarily to what many people think, the "Turing Test" is not a blind alley. Although the "Turing Test" is not anymore a source of inspiration for the AI research, it still introduces many valences: the "Imitation the Game" that has originated the test, contains much more means than it seems at first view. In fact, in order to trick the human judge (obviously authoritative), the computer doesn't only have to answer questions about any imaginable topic (biology, psycology, computer science, mathematics, art, poetry, meteorology, chess, etc.), but it must also be able to lie, really simulating a life experience that, evidently, it have never lived. What's more, the computer must also simulate deficiencies where these don't exist: it should even be able to decide if and when to make errors intentionally, avoiding to show its for some aspects infallible nature; still worse, the computer must be able to establish independently, and with a clear reasoning (following a strategy), variations in the time intervals that elapse between each question and the related answer.
So, although the concept of "Turing Test" has evolved during years, the "Imitation the Game" on which the test is based still preserve an enormous importance for the AI research. This arise from the fact that, if the computer wants "to pass for a human" and exceed the test, it doesn't only have to limit itself to communicate in natural language, in a manner indistinguishable from that of a human being, but should also elaborate very complex "strategies of thought": therefore, the computer should be able to think in a complex way, exactly like a human being. It should be noted that the above considerations are demonstrably true, because the question-answer method of the "Turing Test" doesn't impose constraints of any kind regarding the test topics. In fact, when facing the test, the computer is forced to talk and to reason about arguments that it doesn't know at all, that nobody have previously revealed to it, and that can belong to any, also fictitious, knowledge domain: in this sense, the computer cannot have any preexistent acquaintance. Moreover, the semantic and lexical-syntactic content of the questions asked to the computer could include, isolatedly or combinatorily, various types of sentences that might be: wrong, incongruous, ambiguous, conflicting, paradoxical, illogical, foolish, etc.; they could contain rhetorical-semantic figures like: allegories, allusions, anacoluthons, anaphoras, analogies, anastrophes, amphibologies, antonomasias, asyndetons, chiasms, emphasis, euphemisms, etymology, hyperbatons, hyperboles, metaphors, oxymorons, periphrasis, pleonasms, similes, synecdoches, synesthesias, zeugmas, etc.; the questions might include hyponymy, complementariness, antinomies, reciprocity, incompatibility, polysemy, synonymy; they could also be based on a realistic, theoretical, hypothetical, imaginary or introspective nature, etc. Finally, and last but not least, the computer could decide if and how to answer the questions in this manner: giving a correct answer; giving a wrong answer; by an affirmation or by a negation; with an explanation; by an exclamation; with a question; not answer at all. Still, the computer should have to be able to lie and should possesses the sense of humour.
Concluding, if the "Turing Test" is executed strategically adopting the right combination of questions, and if it is executed for the "correct period of time", absolutely no tricks are possible. Neither a wizard nor an alchemist (stating their existence) could succeed in making to seem "intelligent" something that it is not quite so: how a software programmer could succeed in that using some "stupid" algorithm? The fact that the computer is able to exceed a similar test, with such a sophisticated level that could also create difficulties to a human being, testify that it possess true intelligent capabilities. It is not a human, but it seems human to all the effects: in truth, it is a "non-human super-intelligence". Absolutely no one tricked algorithm can guarantee the right results to exceed a test based on aprioristically unknown information/data and on an infinite tangle of lexical-semantic combinations. In spite of his genius, abilities and experience, there is not a projectist/programmer that can foresee the unforeseeable and handle the infinite.
Hence, fixed that the computer cannot cheat on its intelligence, the "Turing Test" is still valid: so, all people talking in terms of "cheats" or "tricks" regarding a computer capable to pass the test, should totally reconsider their notions and ideas about the human intellect.

You will find that, if PIBOT will be able to pass such a test (by 2007), it will do incredibly much more than:

"PIBOT will be set in a strict environment, the only sensory equipment it will have access to is the direct lingual input from a human operator. In the first simulation we will have PIBOT make a natural (or human) conversation with the operator, trying to convince him/her that it may actually be a human on the other side. In the second simulation we will let PIBOT solve riddles, puzzles and complex lingual statements and then explain, in his own words what he has accomplished"

If you don't want to raise a terminological controversy, you must accept this evidence.

Rick,
as the single employee of your company you are doubtless a very busy man, so I fully understand why you have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the last series of posts. While awaiting this response I took a further look at your website. What I found has prompted me to expand on my first observations on your thread, in which I said "May I recommend putting some more [money ]into hiring an editor for the text."
It is difficult, probably imposssible, to make these comments without seeming offensive, but when an assault of this magnitude is made upon the English language you must expect a reaction. And it is an assault, for your writings offend in several ways:
1) Improper grammar
2) Incorrect spelling
3) Unnecessary neologisms
3) Low to zero semantic content
English is apparently your second or third language, but knowing this would it not have made sense to have your work proof read by a competent writer? I suggest that it would not only have made sense, but that it was vital. You are promoting the concept of AI. This intelligence will be demonstrated through the use of language. The absence of any significant intelligence in your own language must call your thesis in to serious question.
You have a section extracted from your forthcoming work "Rick Geniale and the Tribe of the Discoverers of Fire". Either the extract is from an early draft, or you are self-publishing the work. No reputable publisher would allow such linguistic dross within a typesetter's arm length of a printing press.
I have re-read this post and am uncomfortable with the negative tone that may come across. I would ask you to view it as positive criticism, since I offer a solution: "get someone to re-write your work in proper English".

Many thanks for your interest in our activity.
But fortunately, your opinion is simply an opinion.
For your information, a very deep knowledge is required to understand General Artificial Intelligence: knowledge about mathematics, logic, linguistics, psychology, cognitive psychology, computer science, etc.
I don't want to offend you, but you wrote:

1) Improper grammar
2) Incorrect spelling
3) Unnecessary neologisms
3) Low to zero semantic content

1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 3?
For your information, the correct sequence is 1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 4 .. etc.
I don't know what I have to think. Perhaps that you don't know arithmetics.
Please, keep your criticism really constructive and talk about more concrete things.

Rick my ability to type accurately on a presently malfunctioning keyboard is certainly open to serious question. However, the standards I set, and adhere to in my business communications are considerably higher. Were your website contents submitted to me as the finished work of a subordinate he would currently be undergoing a reassignment.
I may require knowledge about mathematics, logic, linguistics, psychology, cognitive psychology, computer science, etc. to understand Artificial Intelligence, but I do not require these to recognise abominable English. Trust me, whatever message you are seeking to convey is being obscured by the medium.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I regret that your responses were so lacking in substance. It appears we have both wasted our time.

There are approximately 4,500 patents that mention artificial intelligence. For the benefit of interested parties I shall post the patent numbers relating to Pibot when I find these. Since these are public domain you can have no substantive objection to this.

Rick Geniale,

No. I mean a demonstration of a WORKING PRODUCT, displaying a significant improvement over existing AI efforts.

Thus, it is not merely a work in progress, it is already actually capable of producing concrete results. My question would be to publish a few of those results. Yet, I fear that you will evade that question just as you have evaded Blue_UK's request for a transcript.

If so, I'd have to conclude that you are indeed an imposter.

Come clean, Mr. Geniale. What's you game?

I don't think you posted here to get a sponsor, so therefore you're here to let like minded people see you work. Where is it! :)

In responce to your responce: about 50 or so lines of dialogue would be interesting.

tlp

If so, I'd have to conclude that you are indeed an imposter.

You can conlcude whatever you want.
After all, we live in a free world.


Come clean, Mr. Geniale. What's you game?

I don't think you posted here to get a sponsor, so therefore you're here to let like minded people see you work. Where is it!

Game? What game?
Is this an AI forum, or not?
We have published (posted) our article "PIBOT VS TURING (ACT I)" with the only purpose of communicating about a fact: by 2007, there will be an "Artificial Intelligence Machine" (PIBOT) that will represent the first "Real/General AI" system in the world, and that will be able to pass the Turing Test.
Although many people cannot believe this, we cannot understand comments/insults like: "unfounded promises"; "entirely fraudulent"; "complete lack of evidence"; "you look like a fraud if ..."; "bizarre attitude"; "your credibility is now very close to zero"; "illogical mode of behaviour"; "you are indeed an imposter".
What are the reasons of such a fury?
Perhaps because we are not Microsoft, or Google, or Yahoo, or IBM.
Recently, IBM has devised a way to let computers think like vertebrates. Do you believe this news is true? Why?
After the posting of our article, nobody has truly talked about its contents and implications. For example, something like: "If Strong/General/Real AI is possible, as you said, then ...". Also, "If by 2007, a machine will pass the Turing Test, then the scenario of ... [can ... | could ... | should ... | will ... ]". To the contrary, most of yours posts talk about cheats and quibbles.
But if we are impostors, as someone said, then history (and the market) will judge us.
You must only wait and see.

All you are partecipating in an AI forum and talking about AI. But many of you don't ever believe that Real AI is possible. For us, this seems a paradox. You should reflect on it.


In responce to your responce: about 50 or so lines of dialogue would be interesting.

Believe me, 50 lines don't means anything.
Furthermore, we have a very precise strategy for the next three years.
It will be more powerful to see PIBOT live at our Conference.

how will PIBOT communicate during that "live conference"? Will it be talking? or how will you present what you have accomplished?

Rick Geniale,

What are the reasons of such a fury?

It is because of your extra-ordinary claim. As far as I know, no bonafide research institution is near developing something which can pass a Turing test and here you are confidently saying that you will do it in 2007. That seems very unlikely and, on top of that, when called to back up your claim, you find rather odd excuses not to do so.

After the posting of our article, nobody has truly talked about its contents and implications. For example, something like: "If Strong/General/Real AI is possible, as you said, then ...". Also, "If by 2007, a machine will pass the Turing Test, then the scenario of ... [can ... | could ... | should ... | will ... ]". To the contrary, most of yours posts talk about cheats and quibbles.

Other threads deal with the consequences of having AI around. The novelty of this thread is that you state to have built one.

But if we are impostors, as someone said, then history (and the market) will judge us.

I am sure it will.

All you are partecipating in an AI forum and talking about AI. But many of you don't ever believe that Real AI is possible.

How do you know that? I, for one, think that there is no theoretical impossibility for the existence of an AI. I just do not think you have been able to make it a practical reality and you do not give me any reason to change my mind.

Believe me, 50 lines don't means anything.
Furthermore, we have a very precise strategy for the next three years.
It will be more powerful to see PIBOT live at our Conference.

Something that does not mean anything can not possibly hurt your company. So why not post it? Again, you only have something to gain by doing so.

Game? What game?
Is this an AI forum, or not?

It was a phrase meaning "what is you objective".

PIBOT sounds very interesting. Please share some of your results with us.

If you are unhappy with revealing exciting parts of your work, could you talk about the basic structure behind PIBOT?

Is it a neural net? Does it work like conventional conversational AI?

how will PIBOT communicate during that "live conference"? Will it be talking? or how will you present what you have accomplished?

Yes, PIBOT will talk.
The idea is that we should speak as least as possible.
For the greatest part of the day, PIBOT should verbally interact with all the participants.

It is because of your extra-ordinary claim. As far as I know, no bonafide research institution is near developing something which can pass a Turing test and here you are confidently saying that you will do it in 2007. That seems very unlikely and, on top of that, when called to back up your claim, you find rather odd excuses not to do so.

Other threads deal with the consequences of having AI around. The novelty of this thread is that you state to have built one.

How do you know that? I, for one, think that there is no theoretical impossibility for the existence of an AI. I just do not think you have been able to make it a practical reality and you do not give me any reason to change my mind.

Something that does not mean anything can not possibly hurt your company. So why not post it? Again, you only have something to gain by doing so.

Why you are so convinced of our unreliability?
If you are simply a skeptic, there are no problems.
For your information, in the history there has always been someone that has made something for the first time.

But, why you insist to make insinuations about our work?
What do you want we publish? Our secrets? The software codes of PIBOT?
Please, tell us who you are.
Do you work for a company? Which company? Who pays you?
Are you an AI researcher? Are you an AI expert? Are you a futurologist?
Or, more banally, you are envy.
If you are truly interested in our work/products/technology, then contact us privately by e-mail telling us who you are and what do you want from us. Otherwise, I will not reply anymore to your posts.

PIBOT sounds very interesting. Please share some of your results with us.
If you are unhappy with revealing exciting parts of your work, could you talk about the basic structure behind PIBOT?
Is it a neural net? Does it work like conventional conversational AI?

I'm exactly doing that.
We are very pleased of your interests in our work.
We are frequently updating our site: very soon (1-2 weeks), you will find many other information about PIBOT and our vision.
But, I hope that you understand that we cannot "burn out" our Conference.

For clarity purposes, I have just put this thread on our site http://www.pibot.com/

Why you are so convinced of our unreliability? If you are simply a skeptic, there are no problems.

I generally have a skeptical attitude towards people claiming they have done something truly brilliant, yet refuse to give any proof of it. So, indeed, I'm simply a skeptic.

For your information, in the history there has always been someone that has made something for the first time.

Yes, but with a project of this magnitude usually the work load is shared by a team of experts. You said it yourself:

For your information, a very deep knowledge is required to understand General Artificial Intelligence: knowledge about mathematics, logic, linguistics, psychology, cognitive psychology, computer science, etc.

To me, that implies you need experts from all those fields to make PIBOT work. Yet, you claim to be a one-man company? Or, are you very deeply knowledgeable in all those areas?

But, why you insist to make insinuations about our work?

I do not insist. I, and others, posted questions, all of which you have not answered concretely. From there on I speculated about the true status of your project.

What do you want we publish?

Patent numbers and some proof of results.

Our secrets?

No.

The software codes of PIBOT?

No.

Please, tell us who you are.

What good would that do? How does it relate to the issues raised in this thread?

Do you work for a company? Which company? Who pays you?

It suffices to say that the organisation I work for has no ambitions in the field you are active in.

Are you an AI researcher?

No.

Are you an AI expert?

I wouldn't call myself an expert, no. Yet, I do think that my background enables me to detect, on a broad scale, what's truly revolutionary in AI and what is not. You can find an English description dealing with the MSc program I've completed covering aspects of AI here (http://www.cs.vu.nl/ai/masters/ktkm-en.html).

Having said that, I'm not sure why you ask for my credentials since they are not at stake here. Yours obviously are. Do you have any recent published papers in scientific journals? I've Googled on your name (and a few variations like "R. Geniale", etc) and was unable to find anything related to AI, except for a reference to another forum where you have started a similar thread. For those interested in the comments on that forum, you can read them here (http://www.ai-forum.org/topic.asp?forum_id=1&topic_id=15529).

Are you a futurologist?

No.

Or, more banally, you are envy.

If you succeed, I'll metaphorically drown in my own envy, yes.

If you are truly interested in our work/products/technology, then contact us privately by e-mail telling us who you are and what do you want from us.

There is no need to contact you privately. You made a public statement on a public forum. I posted public comments on that statement. It only seems natural that if you have something to add other than what you have written above, that you should do it in the same public arena.

Otherwise, I will not reply anymore to your posts.

As you wish.

Rick,
Claims, claims, claims, secrets and some misconceptions. A typical pattern for one of the few groups of AI beginners/pseudoscientists. Read this (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/index.html?g71p=entry.html) and try to get real. FYI, I'm an AI researcher/developer. You would not believe how many people like you crossed my path in the last several years. Most of them had pretty naive AI ideas. It just took them some time to see it. I recommend you to not make big claims publicly if you do not have anything testable to show.

G71,

Many thanks for your opinion/warning.

Claims, claims, claims, secrets

You're right.

and some misconceptions.

You're wrong.

You would not believe how many people like you crossed my path in the last several years.

I totally believe you: I can imagine this (and why).

Most of them had pretty naive AI ideas.

It's not our case.

I recommend you to not make big claims publicly if you do not have anything testable to show.

I agree. You're right.
But, as I have said in a previous post, history will judge us (and market, too).
And, as you may have read, during our Conference PIBOT should verbally interact with all the participants.
So, if and when PIBOT will fail during its LIVE Conference, then our credibility will be close to zero. Don't you think so?
Surely, we don't want to fail in our efforts: where our success/gain would be in doing so?
We are not stupid! (Nor crazy!!)

None of the 4790 US patents relating to artificial intelligence are for Pibot. Mr Geniale you do not appear to have a patent. That, at least for me, is the source of the suspicion. You have made a claim - that Pibot is covered by a patent (or patents) - yet you refuse to provide the patent number. Your claim that this is a 'legal matter' is spurious nonsense [and please don't call that an opinion: it is a provable fact.]
You note that you were seeking discussion on AI in general and Pibot in particular: what better way than to discuss the concept through the details contained within the patents. Do they exist? I cannot find them. Tell me I am mistaken and prove it by giving those patent numbers.
[By the way, if Pibot could deliver 1/10th of what you are claiming then I and my company would definitiely be potential customers - so all you are doing at the moment is pissing off a customer by your illogical intransigence on this matter of patent numbers.]

None of the 4790 US patents relating to artificial intelligence are for Pibot. Mr Geniale you do not appear to have a patent. That, at least for me, is the source of the suspicion. You have made a claim - that Pibot is covered by a patent (or patents) - yet you refuse to provide the patent number. Your claim that this is a 'legal matter' is spurious nonsense [and please don't call that an opinion: it is a provable fact.]
You note that you were seeking discussion on AI in general and Pibot in particular: what better way than to discuss the concept through the details contained within the patents. Do they exist? I cannot find them. Tell me I am mistaken and prove it by giving those patent numbers.
[By the way, if Pibot could deliver 1/10th of what you are claiming then I and my company would definitiely be potential customers - so all you are doing at the moment is pissing off a customer by your illogical intransigence on this matter of patent numbers.]

Again,
If you are truly interested in our work/products/technology, then contact us privately by e-mail telling us who you are and what do you want from us.
I WILL CLARIFY YOU MORE ABOUT ALL ASPECTS OF OUR BUSINESS.

Mr. Rick Geniale,
You are not registered as an inventor of any US patent..
FYI, anyone can run the full search here (http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm).

Rick,

Why are you repeating the same thing again and again in your posts? I began reading this thread when got interested in the first post....now after reading the whole thing, i have a nagging feeling that "Something's rotten in Denmark".

You haven't given a single frank response to any of the questions in this thread. The famous AI projects like ALICE and ANNA are either freely downloadable or there is a working program hosted on the web. Even commercial products such as UltraHal has a free online implementation. I wonder why you dont have anything like that. If your project is so secretive, why post threads in a public domain. Are you thinking that we are dunderheads out here, willing to gulp down anything you say?

Mr. Rick Geniale,
You are not registered as an inventor of any US patent..
FYI, anyone can run the full search here (http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm).

Mr. G71,
This is a sly post!
And you well know the reasons.
Please, stop this behavior!!!

Rick,

Why are you repeating the same thing again and again in your posts? I began reading this thread when got interested in the first post....now after reading the whole thing, i have a nagging feeling that "Something's rotten in Denmark".

You haven't given a single frank response to any of the questions in this thread. The famous AI projects like ALICE and ANNA are either freely downloadable or there is a working program hosted on the web. Even commercial products such as UltraHal has a free online implementation. I wonder why you dont have anything like that. If your project is so secretive, why post threads in a public domain. Are you thinking that we are dunderheads out here, willing to gulp down anything you say?

Indian,

We have posted our article PIBOT VS TURING (ACT I) on this forum only for information purposes. Do you wanted to prevent that?
We have explained all that we can explain in a public forum: therefore, all your deductions are completely wrong.
Skepticism (legitimate) plays a big role in what we do.
FYI, we have just created a FAQ page on our site (http://www.pibot.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=PIBOT+FAQ).

Rick, you are the one who should stop. Stop plaguing AI forums with hype-only presentations please. Show some evidence, discuss AI challenges, theories, algorithms - that may have some value. If you cannot do that then this may not be the right place for your posts at this point.

Rick, your earlier posts raised questions about your AI initiative. Your FAQ page demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt, at least to this observer, that your grasp of business principles, economics and company formation is at best fragile. My knowledge of AI stands at an amateur level. My knowledge of business does not. Yours clearly does. I wish you well with your fantasy.

Rick, enough is enough... spill the beans... come clean!

What is your academic background?

Rick, your earlier posts raised questions about your AI initiative. Your FAQ page demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt, at least to this observer, that your grasp of business principles, economics and company formation is at best fragile. My knowledge of AI stands at an amateur level. My knowledge of business does not. Yours clearly does. I wish you well with your fantasy.

Again,

you are wrong.
We have a very great international business (and LEGAL!!!) experience: for what concerns the FAQ on our site, you only need to "think outside-the-box" (IF YOU IS ABLE TO DO IT!!!)
For the third time: "if you have so much interest in our company/activities, then contact us privately by e-mail telling us who you are and what do you want from us (ie, WHAT IS YOUR COMPANY???). It's easy to say things and to make critics using an obscure nickname - PLEASE, PUT YOUR TRUE NAME ON YOUR POSTINGS!!! OR PUBLICLY TELL US FOR WHAT COMPANY YOU WORK!!!).
But, as G71 says in his last post, "this is not the right place to talk about these arguments".
G71 says also that this forum should discuss about AI challenges.
OK, but, what we have done opening this thread?
Saying that "PIBOT will pass the Turing Test by 2007", we have launched one major challenge to the Artificial Intelligence. Or not?
And what we have received in change?
Mainly insinuations, provocations and insults. MANY THANKS!!!
Only if and when PIBOT will fail the Turing Test by 2007, then everyone will be able to say: 'YOU HAVE LOST YOUR FACE!!!'. Not now.
Therefore, we have decided that we will not waste anymore time in replying to the insinuations, provocations and insults coming from this forum.
From now, everyone truly interested in our activities can visit our site (waiting for the updates) and reach us via e-mail.

Our best regards to all serious people on this forum.
Rick Geniale Enterprises Corp.

For the third time: "if you have so much interest in our company/activities, then contact us privately by e-mail telling us who you are and what do you want from us (ie, WHAT IS YOUR COMPANY???). It's easy to say things and to make critics using an obscure nickname - PLEASE, PUT YOUR TRUE NAME ON YOUR POSTINGS!!! OR PUBLICLY TELL US FOR WHAT COMPANY YOU WORK!!!).There is no need to shout.
I post here as a private individual. I have no intention of involving the company I work for in any form of contact with another party, when said party has behaved in such an unconvincing and secretive fashion. Had you offered some form of evidence for your AI breakthrough (and a single patent would have provided this) I would have been happy to contact you with my identity, my organisation and an outline of what aspect of your AI interested me. If the initial exchange had looked promising I would have passed it to the appropriate department.
I repeat again the factors that leave me wholly suspicious about your claims. I do this for two reasons - if my suspicions are valid, this may prevent others being mislead by you. If I am totally wrong then these pointers may help you identify those parts of your PR approach you need to work on.

Language:
You provided a lengthy list of linguistic terminology in an earlier post, noting that skills in all these areas were required to implement AI. However, your language in this thread and on your web-site is replete with examples of incorrect grammar, awkward sentence structure and poor style.
Patents
Patents are in the public domain. Let me shout that. Patents are in the public domain. There is no good reason for not telling an interested public what patents relate to Pibot. Your obfuscation of 'legal reasons' is pure nonsense.
Company Size
Many corporations and science institutes have been working on AI for decades with large teams. They have not solved the problems involved. You are a one man company, yet you have succeeded. It seems unlikely.
Recently this 'one man show' has metamorphosed into 'many patents filed by shareholders'. That in itself is suspicious.
Business Appreciation
Your remarks in the FAQ section of your websight display a bumbling understanding of the fundamentals of business.

Other posters have raised other, equally valid points. I await 2007 in anticipation . I hope I have to eat my words, but I doubt it.

PIBOT VS TURING (ACT II) (http://www.pibot.com/tiki/tiki-read_article.php?ar ticleId=2)

Rick, thousands of non-developers keep (re)writting such summaries. This is IMO a waste of time for a real AI/AGI developer you claim to be. I could argue with you about a number of things you wrote there, but I won't. And I recommend you to not spend much time arguing with others about this. Do some real work instead. Use the time and try to contribute to the field so the others have more of the real stuff to summarize.

Rick, thousands of non-developers keep (re)writting such summaries.

I know it, but this is not our case.

This is IMO a waste of time for a real AI/AGI developer

My opinion is radically different from your opinion.

you claim to be.

If you don't want to hear .....

And I recommend you to not spend much time arguing with others about this.

I agree 100% with you: there are so many "dead brains" everywhere.
But only for curiosity, which "others" you talk about?

Do some real work instead.

PIBOT already exists, and can demonstrate a fully functional solution in the AI/AGI field (differently form any other initiative/project that has been under intense government-sponsored research for more than 5 decades). I hope it's clear what I'm saying!

Use the time and try to contribute to the field so the others have more of the real stuff to summarize.

Rick Geniale Enterprises Corp. is a privately helded company, not funded by public funds. We don't want contributions. We don't need contributions. So, we aren't obliged to contribute to any field. Our mission is to make money for our shareholders, so we don't waste our time. We are focused on our long-term strategy. We will decide if/when/where/how/why put more stuff, and this stuff will be visible only to selected partners.
Again, only for curiosity, which "others" you talk about?


Therefore, what type of game are you playing here?

Rick,
From the business point of view, the hiding IMO does not make sense at this point. How difficult would it be for PIBOT to master the Go game?

Rick,
From the business point of view, the hiding IMO does not make sense at this point. How difficult would it be for PIBOT to master the Go game?

Not much difficult.

Not much difficult.

In other words, it wouldn't be difficult for you to make a history, just like the Deep Blue team in 1997, but.. Why to bother, right? A few million dollars here, a few million dollars there.. Who cares? Right? BTW do you know that it takes just a few $ per month to save a human life? A child which would otherwise die of hunger or hunger-related problems.. Anyway, how do you want to use PIBOT in order to "make money for your shareholders"? No details needed. Just generally.. You said you already have a functional AGI so what are you waiting for? Assuming you are not a liar, it seems to me that you are rather losing money.

In other words, it wouldn't be difficult for you to make a history, just like the Deep Blue team in 1997, but.. Why to bother, right? A few million dollars here, a few million dollars there.. Who cares? Right? BTW do you know that it takes just a few $ per month to save a human life? A child which would otherwise die of hunger or hunger-related problems.. Anyway, how do you want to use PIBOT in order to "make money for your shareholders"? No details needed. Just generally.. You said you already have a functional AGI so what are you waiting for? Assuming you are not a liar, it seems to me that you are rather losing money.

What???
OK, I have understood.
You are not serious.
You are playing a dirty game.
But I think that your game is over.

Have fun in your PIBOT dream world.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A80614


The Turing Test

A test for artificial intelligence suggested by the mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing. The gist of it is that a computer can be considered intelligent when it can hold a sustained conversation with a computer scientist without him being able to distinguish that he is talking with a computer rather than a human being.

Some critics suggest this is unreasonably difficult since most human beings are incapable of holding a sustained conversation with a computer scientist.

After a moments thought they usually add that most computer scientists aren't capable of distinguishing humans from computers anyway.

Ok, Call me the conspiracy theorist, but:
Has anyone noticed that our friend is getting rather repetitive. Not only that, but the grammer he/it uses is awkward. Did a google search for the company name and found it interesting that the last name translates to brilliant in german. Anyone else think that the possibility exists that if this thing exists, they are testing it now, and that is why he/it isn't very forthcoming with details. Add to this the post time. True, he/it could be composing them in advance, but then why not make one post addressing multiple users as opposed to posts addressed to each. He/it has had some long posts for the one minute that passes inbetween.

This whole thing is a nonsense. Skilled people in this field don't do/say things Rick does/says. There are patterns in his behavior which strongly suggest he did not have an easy childhood and now just desperately longs for attention/recognition. It took him some time to realize that people at various AI forums typically aren't naive enough to buy big claims without any evidence. Hopefully, it will force him to do some real work. There are folks with similar background who eventually did big things, but this guy still seems to have a very long way to go. I wish him luck anyway. The more people think about AI the better.

bah, just find a thread "Backslash 777".
It all has been done before.

A bit of groundwork reveals "Enrico Bertini and Riccardo Melonaro" as Chairman ans Co-Chairman (found here (http://www.accelerating.org/ac2005/attendees.html)) of "Rick Geniale Enterprises Inc." There are even links to PIBOT, so this is without question the people behind the PIBOT, and the "Rick Geniale" moniker.

Riccardo Melonaro yields nothing on Google or Google Scholar.

This (http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~bertini/) is the homepage of an Enrico Bertini involved with CS, but not only is the science not AI-focused, the quality of the english is far better than Rick Geniale's. Hence I don't believe these Enrico Bertinis to be the same, since he surely would not let his company have such awfully poor english on its website.

There are also no AI-related US patents (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=in%2Fbertini&d=ptxt) with "bertini" as the inventor, and none (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=in%2Fmelonaro&d=ptxt) at all for "melonaro" as inventor. There are 213 patents worldwide (http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=a&FIRST=1&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPODOC&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=Bertini&EC=&IC=&=&=&=&=&=) with "Bertini" as inventor and zero (http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=a&FIRST=1&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPODOC&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=Melonaro&EC=&IC=&=&=&=&=&=) for "Melonaro". There are seven (http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=a&FIRST=1&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPODOC&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=Geniale&EC=&IC=&=&=&=&=&=) with Geniale as inventor (though that would be fraud, since a proper name must be used). There are absolutely none with "Rick Geniale Enterprises Inc." as applicant. Worldwide.

I have but the slightest grasp of italian, but none of these patents seem remotely related to AI. This is not an exhaustive search, but on this basis I find it fair to assume that Rick Geniale Enterprises Inc. in fact holds no patents, worldwide, AI or otherwise. To the sceptic, a couple of interesting questions present themselves:

Why did "Rick Geniale" present the company as one-man when it is clear that there are at least two involved?

Why does the company have a proper name as a name, when no such person exists?

Why did "Rick Geniale" lie about the patent issue?

All this, on top of the fact that all Rick Geniale has presented seems to be hot air, leads me to conclude that he/she/it, the company, and the PIBOT, are in fact, an elaborate (but inelegant) fraud. If a look at the website wasn't enought to scare you away, this should.

Not much difficult.
I sincerely hope that PIBOT speaks italian, and not english, since you (Enrico? Riccardo?) seem to have difficulties with forming correct sentences with just three words!

:p

Clearly he is trying to attract visitors to his site for the micropayments he generates from banner advertisments.

Regardless of the AAI (artificial artifical inteligence), he claims to represent a company that is serious about giving conferences and obtaining other positive publicity. However.. No genuine company trying to get serious attention from investors and technologists would be so self-degrading as to put Amazon and Google ads (let alone a lame book by Pinker) all over their site.

Don't even go to this link. It's clearly BS. (And what's with the obnoxious background image that prevents you from being able to actually read the content?)

PIBOT is the acronym of hyPer Intelligent roBOT.

I think someone needs to brush up on what an "acronym" is.