Mon.20.SEP.2010 -- The Emergency of Mind
In our previous MindForth
coding session we got tantalizingly close to an ability of
the AI Mind to
exhaustively dredge up knowledge from its
knowledge base (KB) in response to queries from a
human user. Now we hope to tweak some parameters of
conceptual activation so that the AI chain of thought will not be derailed during
interrogation by a human user. The following archived
exchange shows the problem.
Transcript of AI Mind interview at 18 54 10 o'clock on 20 September 2010.Human: what are you Robot: I AM A PERSON
Human: what are you Robot: I AM A ROBOT
Human: what are you Robot: ANDRU IS AN ANDRU
To ascertain why the AI above says "ANDRU IS AN ANDRU"
instead of the desired "I AM ANDRU", we will insert code
for diagnostic messages into the thinking modules of the
robot AI
Mind.
By putting test messages right into the heart of the
NounPhrase most-active-noun selection process, we have
discovered that the "I" concept with an activation of 43
was beaten out by the "ANDRU" concept with activation 49.
It is possible that activation was building up on "ANDRU"
each time that "ANDRU" was passed over as a candidate to
be the subject of a response.
When we go into
ReActivate and have it up the activation of a selected
concept not by 16 but by 18, then the range between "I"
and "ANDRU" narrows from 43 versus 49 to 45 versus 49,
becuase the increment in ReActivate affects the proposed
subject concept "I" from the "what are YOU" query, but not
the lurking "ANDRU" concept, which has been incremented by
32 points of activational "spike" when the previous
statement "I am a robot" was being generated. We may try
to narrow the gap even further by inserting one or more
calls to
PsiDecay into the gneration process. We fear tweaking
the ReActivate parameters too much, because we could upset
some differential tests elsewhere.
No, we do not insert a call to PsiDecay, because it would affect all concepts equally. Instead we go into the VerbAct module and we change the following code.
\ psi @ 58 = IF 32 spike ! THEN \ BE; 15sep2010 \ psi @ 57 = IF 32 spike ! THEN \ AM; 15sep2010 \ psi @ 66 = IF 32 spike ! THEN \ IS; 15sep2010 \ psi @ 67 = IF 32 spike ! THEN \ ARE; 15sep2010psi @ 58 = IF 28 spike ! THEN \ BE; 20sep2010 psi @ 57 = IF 28 spike ! THEN \ AM; 20sep2010 psi @ 66 = IF 28 spike ! THEN \ IS; 20sep2010 psi @ 67 = IF 28 spike ! THEN \ ARE; 20sep2010
By lowering the "spike" value that passes between "AM"
and "ANDRU" before the KB knowledge is summoned, so
that "ANDRU" is incremented not by 32 points but by only
28 points of activation, we finally get the desired
response of "I AM AN ANDRU" as the third tidbit of
knowledge retrieved from the knowledge base (KB). Now we
need to test the robot AI further and see if a wide range
of knowledge items can be retrieved from the KB without
glitches.
Oh jeeze Louise, oh heaven help the human race.
Look at the following conversation which we just got with
no other interventions after the preceding paragraph
reported the "I AM AN ANDRU" response.
Human: you are software Robot: SOFTWARE ARE THE SOFTWARETranscript of AI Mind interview at 20 30 24 o'clock on 20 September 2010.
Human: what are you Robot: SOFTWARE
Human: what are you Robot: I AM THE SOFTWARE
Human: what are you Robot: I AM A PERSON
Human: what are you Robot: I AM A ROBOT
Human: what are you Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
Human: what are you Robot: I AM A PERSON
Human: what are you Robot: I AM THE SOFTWARE
Human: what are you Robot: I NEED ME
When we run the "dot-psi" report to check conceptual
activations, it looks as though the various "I AM..."
answers were all so inhibited that the chain of thought veered off into "I NEED ME" as
the final item above.
Since we are not writing here for The Journal of
Irreproducible Results, anybody may download both Win32Forth and
MindForth and conduct psychological experiments with
the emerging AI
Mind. And look out, world. The emergence may turn into
an emergency.