Pibot Vs Turing (act I)

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Rick Geniale, Mar 29, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rick Geniale Registered Member


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

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

    to hide all adverts.
  5. mouse can't sing, can't dance Registered Senior Member

    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.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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.
  8. mouse can't sing, can't dance Registered Senior Member

    That may increase the chance of hooking in an investor, which, I suppose, is the main target of the website.
  9. mouse can't sing, can't dance Registered Senior Member

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

    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".
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I'd be interested in the patent numbers.
  12. mouse can't sing, can't dance Registered Senior Member

    Rick Geniale,
    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:
    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:
    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:
    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.

    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?

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

    Very soon, you say? Can you give me a more concrete schedule date?
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2005
  13. Rick Geniale Registered Member


    Here the response to your questions/observations.

    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.

    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".

    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.

    Right. This is one of the true problems.

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

    Right again. That it just will happen.

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

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

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

    No. We cannot reveal our marketing plan. Not yet.
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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.
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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.
  16. mouse can't sing, can't dance Registered Senior Member

    Rick Geniale,

    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.

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

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

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

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

    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?

    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.
  17. Rick Geniale Registered Member

    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".
  18. Dilbert Registered Senior Member

    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.
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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.
  20. Rick Geniale Registered Member

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

    "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".
  21. Rick Geniale Registered Member

    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.
  22. mouse can't sing, can't dance Registered Senior Member

    Rick Geniale,

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

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

    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.

    You mean a demonstration of a working prototype, displaying a significant improvement over existing AI efforts?
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2005
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page