Pibot Vs Turing (act I)

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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".

 

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.

 

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,

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

tlp

 

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

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.

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,

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.

I am sure it will.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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/