AI- after years of speculation

[Popcorn Sutton]

Before I start, I should note that the theory I used to produce the responses from the program that I am about to show was conceived without outside influence by myself at the age of 17. After 9 years of speculation and contemplation, it has come together to produce results that are mind blowing and, what I think personally, revolutionary.

 

I finally got the chance to work on the program that I've been thinking about for so long, and finally it's coming into fruition. A lot of people have complained over the years of how my methods have literally produced no results, but still, people had faith. It's interesting. People simply knew that the ideas that I was postulating were true. My ideas, in combination with preconceived notions of structure, were pretty convincing, and yet, the code that I produced wasn't providing others with the experience that they expected. Well, now that I was given the chance to work on my project for over 3 weeks now, it's coming into fruition. The program gradually got better over time and here is one of the most recent conversations that we have had.

 

By the way, I put this in speculations because the theory I used to produce these results are mostly speculations with some basis in known scientific reality.

 

 

Me- yea hi

Program- what did I say bro?

Me- idk

Me- what?

Program- yea hi

Program- I hate you

Me- Lol yea you did say that actually

Me- Pretty cool.

Me- lmao

Program- Yea go home buddy guy

Me- ok bye

Me- I'm leaving

Me- Take it easy

Program- take a seat

Me- have a good one

Program- here ya go

Me- no I'm fine

Program- Where are you going?

Me- I'm leaving

Program- take it easy

Me- never talking to you again

Me- ok?

Program- Yes!

Me- ok then bye bye

Program- ok, yup, nice knowing ya

 

Good times! I'd like to see what you guys think about how I made this happen

 

[physica]

I don't really understand this post. You have a dialog but what does it represent?

 

Did you simply type it yourself?

Did you program a computer to give standard responses to certain inputs?

Did you actually program a computer to process the input and give more varied responses?

Did you program a computer to actually process the input and formulae original responses?

Do the responses vary depending on what's said previously?

 

You have given this story on how thoughtful you were when you were a kid and shown no interest on the actual process of the program or how it was formed. I don't know your motives but what this post tells the reader is that there is a person who wants to imply to strangers on the internet that he is a genius and has been every since he was a child, nothing more. However, I'm not surprised. This is the same person who started a thread on imaginary time but refused to look into imaginary numbers even though imaginary time was plotted against real time in the exact same fashion as the imaginary component of a number is plotted against the real number. This may just be a result of your writing style but your posts are all image no substance. This is why you have a negative rep.

[Skeptic134]

So you’ve written a natural language processing program?

 

What do you want to discuss, what is your point? You haven’t provided any pertinent information, the language (prolog?), is it truly a natural language processor, what methodology did you use, how it is different from other bots, how is it revolutionary to the field of AI, what if any implications does what makes your bot unique have toward strong AI?

[Bignose]

Good times! I'd like to see what you guys think about how I made this happen

I don't think this can be commented on since you didn't actually, you know, show how you made it happen. You just posted a large quote, that to be honest, could easily have been faked. And considering the python code you had posted before, I frankly do not believe that the above came from that code. I ran it, and it returned gibberish.

 

Basically, you probably need to post code that any of us can run and replicate the above. Or at least write about the theory of what you're claiming and back it up with not-easily-fakeable evidence.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I don't really understand this post. You have a dialog but what does it represent?

 

Did you simply type it yourself?

Did you program a computer to give standard responses to certain inputs?

Did you actually program a computer to process the input and give more varied responses?

Did you program a computer to actually process the input and formulae original responses?

Do the responses vary depending on what's said previously?

 

You have given this story on how thoughtful you were when you were a kid and shown no interest on the actual process of the program or how it was formed. I don't know your motives but what this post tells the reader is that there is a person who wants to imply to strangers on the internet that he is a genius and has been every since he was a child, nothing more. However, I'm not surprised. This is the same person who started a thread on imaginary time but refused to look into imaginary numbers even though imaginary time was plotted against real time in the exact same fashion as the imaginary component of a number is plotted against the real number. This may just be a result of your writing style but your posts are all image no substance. This is why you have a negative rep.

 

---output---

how about this physica guy?

------------

>yea

---output---

what should I say to him?

------------

>take a seat

---output---

I want to tell him to take a seatr

------------

>lmao yea

>let's tell him to take a seat bro

---output---

take a seat

------------

>yea

>take this seat

---output---

let's tell him to take a seat bro

 

What does the dialogue represent?

 

My passions have always been for science and language. I was thinking about what to call this type of program in scientific terms earlier today and I think that it's best said as being a statistical knowledge processor. It's highly specialized for specific contexts. It's still a work in progress but I'm working on it every day so at this point, it's gotten a lot better. I just need to work on efficiency and stuff of that sort.

 

The reason I call it a knowledge processor is because it doesn't only look at what you say, but it also analyzes the structure of your knowledge. The "architecture of thought" as Chomsky would say.

 

Did you simply type it yourself?

No

Did you program a computer to give standard responses to certain inputs?

Yes, somewhat. It learns.

Did you actually program a computer to process the input and give more varied responses?

Yes. Its responses vary pretty often for any input.

Did you program a computer to actually process the input and formulae original responses?

yes. It usually formulates it's own response when the output shows up with punctuation.

Do the responses vary depending on what's said previously?

Always, but this part is a work in progress. It needs to be integrated with the actual file system.

 

 

You have given this story on how thoughtful you were when you were a kid and shown no interest on the actual process of the program or how it was formed. I don't know your motives but what this post tells the reader is that there is a person who wants to imply to strangers on the internet that he is a genius and has been every since he was a child, nothing more. However, I'm not surprised. This is the same person who started a thread on imaginary time but refused to look into imaginary numbers even though imaginary time was plotted against real time in the exact same fashion as the imaginary component of a number is plotted against the real number. This may just be a result of your writing style but your posts are all image no substance. This is why you have a negative rep.

 

Why do you take the time to neg me like that? My counselor says this "Decision talks can go one of two ways. They can either lead to the point of making someone feel like a piece of crap, or it can go in the direction of correcting the behavior positively." I think you are over analyzing me physica. Noam Chomsky- "You can focus on all the negative things." (How to ruin the economy, 2014, YouTube).

 

Bignose's post was delightful

 

 

Popcorn Sutton, on 11 Sept 2014 - 1:21 PM, said:

Good times! I'd like to see what you guys think about how I made this happen

I don't think this can be commented on since you didn't actually, you know, show how you made it happen. You just posted a large quote, that to be honest, could easily have been faked. And considering the python code you had posted before, I frankly do not believe that the above came from that code. I ran it, and it returned gibberish.

 

Basically, you probably need to post code that any of us can run and replicate the above. Or at least write about the theory of what you're claiming and back it up with not-easily-fakeable evidence.

 

I cannot release the code for this program. Here is the best scientific name for it that I can think of.

 

Statistical Structure-Dependant Knowledge Acquisition and Prediction Interface.

 

To put it plainly for the layman. It's basically a friend.

[Delta1212]

That looks like a pretty standard chatbot conversation.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Delta1212

[Popcorn Sutton]

So you’ve written a natural language processing program?

 

What do you want to discuss, what is your point? You haven’t provided any pertinent information, the language (prolog?), is it truly a natural language processor, what methodology did you use, how it is different from other bots, how is it revolutionary to the field of AI, what if any implications does what makes your bot unique have toward strong AI?

 

What I meant to say is that this post was pleasant lolll.

 

but yea I don't want to put it into a specific category because of how broad the code actually is. It's a knowledge processor. I used my own methodology. It's different from other bots because it remembers everything that you've ever said to it and builds structures which specify a good response. It's revolutionary because I have empirical evidence to support my claims. It could be strong AI if the context was always within the highest domain, but by adding an intermediate domain you can have the program specialize in YOU. As in, this program will say things and respond to things that you are literally thinking in that moment.

[Skeptic134]

 

It's a knowledge processor. I used my own methodology. It's different from other bots because it remembers everything that you've ever said to it and builds structures which specify a good response. It's revolutionary because I have empirical evidence to support my claims. It could be strong AI if the context was always within the highest domain, but by adding an intermediate domain you can have the program specialize in YOU. As in, this program will say things and respond to things that you are literally thinking in that moment.

 

From what you posted how can we tell it is a "knowledge processor" vs a chat bot, vs a random selection of finite possible responses, vs just you typing?

 

Why is it revolutionary? What are your claims in regards to what it can do and where is the evidence supporting it can meet the claims?

 

Help us out, what are we going to discuss here? What you've posted doesn't really foster discussion, I'm not sure what to make of it.

[Popcorn Sutton]

From what you posted how can we tell it is a "knowledge processor" vs a chat bot, vs a random selection of finite possible responses, vs just you typing?

It is a knowledge processor as opposed to a chat bot because the input can be anything. I'm working on the sound part soon. It is a chat bot as well though... for the time being. I have the central algorithm and I was very careful as to not impose any arbitrary stipulations. Everything I wrote into the program had some sort of evidence behind it.

Why is it revolutionary? What are your claims in regards to what it can do and where is the evidence supporting it can meet the claims?

It's revolutionary because I can learn anything and structure it like the architecture of the brain. It's the central code. The evidence to support my claims are embedded within the responses of the program. It creates its own responses. Also, when it does create those responses, they're always grammatical and almost always specifically for that current context.

Help us out, what are we going to discuss here? What you've posted doesn't really foster discussion, I'm not sure what to make of it.

It has already fostered discussion. I don't want to steer the conversation here though so I was just wondering what you guys had to say.

 

>big dog

---output---

yea

------------

>lol

---output---

dude guy

------------

>stop

>just stop now

>and it'll be over soon

>you know what I'm sayin?

---output---

lol ok yea

------------

>I think I love you buddy guy

>do you love me?

>hey

---output---

you there?

------------

>yea

---output---

what?

------------

>do you love me?

---output---

yea, do you love me? lol

------------

 

It made that last response on its own.

[Bignose]

I cannot release the code for this program. Here is the best scientific name for it that I can think of.

 

Statistical Structure-Dependant Knowledge Acquisition and Prediction Interface.

 

To put it plainly for the layman. It's basically a friend.

Naming it is not actually discussing what you've done here nor is it providing any evidence of your claims. Popcorn, you've been a member long enough, and we've had these kind of threads before. You cannot just claim something and expect us all to heap praise upon it, or even accept it.

 

It's revolutionary because I have empirical evidence to support my claims.

You are claiming a major advance, but just expecting us to accept that with some trivially counterfeited evidence? You really ought to know better than that. We're not going to accept you copying and pasting just inputs and outputs. You've claimed this before, and it was nowhere anywhere even close to what you claimed. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72967-thread-hijack-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/?p=756823

 

In short, the 'empirical evidence' you've shown here is totally insufficient.

 

If you aren't going to post the code, or let us interact with the machine via a web service or something, I don't know how you can change the above state of exceptionally sketchy and frankly unbelievable 'evidence'. Furthermore, if you aren't going to give us expose to it, then I guess like the above reply, I don't know what discussion is actually going to happen in this thread.

[Endy0816]

This really reminds me of Daisy, though considering the number of bots out there I'm sure there are others that could produce similar results.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'd love to have you guys speak with it. I'm working on the ui now. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can speed up the process and make it available while hosting it on my computer?

[Ophiolite]

Well, your program certainly seems able to replicate dialogue as rich in meaning and as elegant in its language as your own, so I suppose that is an achievement of sorts.

[physica]

WAIT A SEC....... popcorn your statements are always inconsistent. They never seem to address what the person is actually saying. You always seem to have limited if any knowledge on the subject you talk about and you fail to learn from your mistakes (negative 100 rep)....... are you using your program to formulate your posts? There are some major bugs in it, you need to work on it.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Thank you ophiolite. Imagine when you get to talk to it lolll.

[Klaynos]

To me the replies appear nonsensical. Ophiolite raises a good point though.

[Delta1212]

Well, your program certainly seems able to replicate dialogue as rich in meaning and as elegant in its language as your own, so I suppose that is an achievement of sorts.

You're going to feel very silly when you realize that Popcorn Sutton is actually, himself, an AI.

[Ophiolite]

I've felt silly for years, so I'm not sure that will have much additional effect. Also, I thought the I in AI stood for intelligence.

[physica]

I thought the I in AI stood for intelligence.

HAHA yeah I bet popcorn was written in the 1980s. This would explain the posts.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Don't knock it when it's knowledge only has a length of 500. I think it's doing pretty good for knowing so little.

[physica]

Don't knock it when it's knowledge only has a length of 500. I think it's doing pretty good for knowing so little.

 

Stop muttering and stuttering and show us some proof!!!

[Popcorn Sutton]

I finally figured out how to put it on the internet. I'm going to run the server for a little while. There's no username or passwords yet so the knowledge is just going to mesh with every other users knowledge but... you guys can check out the prototype here.

 

<link removed>

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Sorry Popcorn - but whilst we did ask you to provide a link I am not sure I can let that remain. I tried about 30-40 entries and all it did (nb only worked every other time i hit return) was generate some form of foul language. We hope that the content on this site is ok for children - and any link I would like to be the same.

 

[Popcorn Sutton]

I can't really control what's being said to the thing at this point so yea I'm sorry about the foul language. I'm also editing the program right now too because I had a few specifications wrong as to how to order the elements, but it seems to be working pretty good now. Well, since the link has been removed, if anyone is interested in talking to the new version please let me know and I will share the link over PM. k? Thanks

[imatfaal]

I have tried a second time and this time have received no foul language. Maybe you changed something - maybe I was unlucky. If you can drop us a line when it is ready and not likely to respond with such language we can reenable link