25 Years of the AAAI

Posted 11 Jul 2005 at 20:35 UTC by steve Share This

A article notes the achievements and "tremendous progress" of AI since the first meeting of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence 25 year ago. Of course, the article notes, despite that progress, "machines still aren't smart enough to do just about anything a person can". AI proponents point out examples of AI including chess playing programs, search engines, and the cruise control in your car. The usual prediction of intelligent machines within 10 years won't be found in this article though. The experts asked predict it will be a "long time" before we achieve real AI.

Real AI has been achieved, posted 12 Jul 2005 at 02:12 UTC by AI4U » (Observer)

Mind.Forth for robots is real AI, based on a linguistic theory of mind.

Click below to be an AAAI-05 virtual attendee. aaai05blog.html use.html
http://aaai05bl all.html ellen.html geoff.html li.html it-was-good.html uis.html duquesne-university.html airplanes.html minsky.html feathers.html anyways.html research-anyways_11.html

You can find the Mind.Forth/Mentifex/Ai4, posted 14 Jul 2005 at 10:56 UTC by wedesoft » (Master)

... here

Mentifex responds to our good man Wedekind, posted 15 Jul 2005 at 15:09 UTC by AI4U » (Observer)

As posted at ...

Hello, Jan Wedekind. I have just read your Amazon AI4U review and I feel that you have been very unfair. My work is far different from SHRDLU. You write that I should withdraw my theories if proven wrong (and I agree with you), but who has proven me wrong? People have ridiculed my theory of mind, but they have not pointed out any particular part of the theory that is wrong, and they have not explained why anything in the theory is wrong. On the contrary, people like the eminent AI researcher Dr. Ben Goertzel express admiration for the Mentifex AI theory. I am sorry if you bought my AI4U book and did not like it or perhaps did not understand it, but I hope that you will hold on to the AI4U book and come to appreciate it more as time goes by. I am not *pushing* people to buy the book; it is available to read for free on-line. If you eventually realize that your review is wrong, I hope that *you* will retract your review. If my AI theory is proven wrong, I will retract it, but thus far it has not been proven wrong, even after quite a few years. In closing, this message is a friendly comment. I appreciate your taking the trouble to write a real-name review, and even if I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.

WoW!, posted 15 Jul 2005 at 16:35 UTC by dogsbody_d » (Master)

I'm impressed M. That was an actual post, not just a link. Okay, so it was cross-posted, but even so...

There's a maxim in writing er... well Dr Who fiction, but I'm sure it's general... Don't tell, show. So if your theories are so fantastic, knock it up into a robot (how long can it take ;) ) I applaud your open attitude, but I don't think it's the science that puts people off, it's the attitude. I really did think that you were a bot for a while!

So, do us a favour, and try, just try, not to post a link to your site for a while, but KEEP POSTING. I don't care if people think you are a loon, they'll say I'm a crackpot too. Albeit a crackpot with an MSc in AI. Crackpottery is no reason for ignoring you. Speak up I say! Just try not to speak up with such blatant spam.

Please post real posts, what do you actually think about the news item you are responding to? Does it remind you of anything similar? Come on, you've been bothering the field of AI since before most of us could walk, you must have some experience!

P.S., posted 15 Jul 2005 at 16:35 UTC by dogsbody_d » (Master)

Talking about yourself in the third-person is weird.

AI4U FAQ, posted 15 Jul 2005 at 17:50 UTC by The Swirling Brain » (Master)

I just love the AI4U FAQ that wedesoft posted!

You know the creation of any product involves many steps such as theory, prototype, test, rework, produce product and maintenance. Without being able follow all such steps and working only on the theory part it's like a total waste of time. And a mind is a terrible thing to waste! AI4U has never gotten past vague theories! AI4U doesn't have any proof of concept, only a glob of random, hard to follow, ideas that he thinks a mind should be. Hey, even I have ideas how a mind works, but so what, that doesn't make me know for sure how artificial intelligence works as he claims. He doesn't know how to assemble his thoughts into a working artificial intelligence or even understands for sure lowly bug intelligence. So how can he be an expert in the mind? Why believe anything he says until he shows proof that it can do something useful? He should put up or shut up which from seeing the years this guy has been at it, I don't expect he will shut up even though he should.

Mind.Forth Programming Journal (MFPJ) 16.JUL.2005, posted 16 Jul 2005 at 14:59 UTC by AI4U » (Observer)


It should not matter what inputs we use as a test to debug the problem of spurious associations. It would be nice, however, to find some classic inputs that would highlight any existing problem.

For test input, if we use words that are already in the AI bootstrap vocabulary, then NEWCONCEPT should not get called and the AI should generate a response based solely upon the functions of OLDCONCEPT, ACTIVATE and SPREADACT. However, when we type in

"people see robots"
we get
as a response. Our diagnostic mode reveals to us that the spurious direct-object "YOU" had an activation of 54, while the correct direct-object "ROBOTS" had a high but insufficient activation of only 51.

Uh-oh. We have a vexing enigma of a bug right now. With the test input above, we only get the wrong response in diagnostic mode, not in normal mode. It suggests a Heisenbergian problem where to observe the functionality is to change the functionality.

After much experimentation based on guesswork, it seems that the #56 psi concept of "YOU" is being activated whenever we start the Forthmind and press either the space-bar or the Tab key.

Hmm. The spurious activation of the "YOU" concept has something to do with the bootstrap "ME" concept that went just before it. Oh, well, it's not so much a spurious-association problem as it is a spurious-instantiation problem. In fact, dwelling on the problem leads us to speculate, if not conclude, that the AI is just doing what it is supposed to do after the unterminated input of a SPACE character, which is to instantiate the current psi concept. Therefore the inner-POV concept of "ME" gets instantiated as an external-POV concept of "YOU". After all, the Forthmind is in a mode of accepting external input.

Ideas for a fix come to mind, such as somehow not letting the Tab key lead to a calling of INSTANTIATE.

This session of coding reminds us of how "brittle" the AI software is. We introduce the Tab key functionality, and we break the normal INSTANTIATE functionality.

Pure Nonsense, posted 17 Jul 2005 at 03:26 UTC by The Swirling Brain » (Master)

I often lose my mind too when I can't get my TAB or CAPS key to work. Sometimes, I look down and INITIATE a key press of the CAPS key and it doesn't work all the time because of the cola fluid that I accidentally SPILT down the keyboard and haven't had the TIME to run it through the dish WASHER. So, when that happens I become INFURIATED and then want to YANK on my hair or what I have left of it until I become BALD. So, instead, I just go FORTH and buy another keyboard and save my MIND but so now my operating system still works a little off KILTER but my keyboard is OK for the time BEING.

Heh-heh LOL Very funny indeed, that Swirling Brain, posted 17 Jul 2005 at 07:51 UTC by AI4U » (Observer)

The Swirling Brain should write for comedy shows.

Didn't expect a response ..., posted 18 Jul 2005 at 21:59 UTC by wedesoft » (Master)

... from someone as busy as Mr. Murray.
> ... and I feel that you have been very unfair.
I rather think, that you're pretending to feel like this for opportunistic reasons.
> My work is far different from SHRDLU.
That's my point.
> ... (and I agree with you), but who has proven me wrong?
There is no need to prove it wrong, because it's obvious. The burden of the proof is lasting on you.
> People have ridiculed my theory of mind, ...
They will continue to do so, as long as you don't stick to the rules of the scientific community.
>...but they have not pointed out any particular part of the theory that is wrong, and they have not explained why anything in the theory is wrong.
People have done this in length already. For the moment you've forfeited the right to get reasonable explanations.
>... Dr. Ben Goertzel express admiration ...
No, he doesn't (see AI4U-FAQ).
>I am sorry if you bought my AI4U book and did not like it ...
It's not a matter of liking (and please don't remind me of my mistake).
> ... or perhaps did not understand it, ...
What is more likely?
>If you eventually realize that your review is wrong, I hope that *you* will retract your review. ...
In the unlikely case, that you'll forget about this book and come up with some proper stuff (*), I'll consider the book as one of your earlier mistakes.
>In closing, this message is a friendly comment. I appreciate your taking the trouble ... defend to the death your right to say it.
Don't even think about my right to say it! And now you can safely dissect my posting, because I'm waiting for (*) to happen.

Mentifex said at..., posted 18 Jul 2005 at 23:19 UTC by AI4U » (Observer) bright.html

The future is not so bright according to Rolling Stone Magazine. Which will arrive first? Vernor Vinge's Technological Singularity based on artificial intelligence, or The Long Emergency where oil depletion causes the collapse of civilization?

When M.I.T. (all those technology squares) recently held a Futurist Convention ("Hi! When do you come from?"), nobody showed up from the future to report that AAAI-05 attendees had finished AI graduate school and had gone on to save the human race via AI. What went wrong in the future?

Perhaps the problem is the great AI schism between Academia and as-it-were the Impressionists of AI, the motley crew of AI hackers, phrackers, also-rans and Singularity fans. You of the AI Establishment hold your convention in the cathedral, while out in the bazaar, the bizarre have organized an avant-garde Salon des Refuse's. When I get to the future, I am not coming back, so please listen to what Mentifex has to say right now.

If you wonder when will the Singularity happen -- it is happening *now*. A flashpoint is approaching where resistance will turn to acceptance and antagonism will turn to enthusiasm.

Currently the muggles ascribe the darkest of motives to your humble independent AI scholar trying to spread the AI word. Take for instance AI4U - which is free to read on the Web. On Amazon, the ludicrous Luddites post AI4U reviews with such titles as A charlatan's bible and The rantings of a crackpot . If you prick us, do we not bleed? And if you poison us, do we not die? Therefore, when we respond to you, will somebody please write an AI4U Amazon review that sets the record straight?

You _ARE_ a nutter, posted 19 Jul 2005 at 14:27 UTC by dogsbody_d » (Master)

I'm really happy to talk to people outside of academia. I think most of us are. The robot community happily embraces those people who produce results. Where would we be without linux? The BEAM community? Robot Wars has encouraged a whole generation of little roboticist kids. Various competitions, from micro-mouse to robocup have brought people together from all over what is a very multidisciplinary field. We've got computer scientists, mechanical engineers, electronics people, philosophers, psychologists, operational researchers, ethologists, entymologists, and ethicists. Oh, and you.

For goodness sake, meet people halfway. I'm not going to tell you to obey the rules of scientific community maaaaan, but a little netiquette goes a long way. So I note that you've crossposted AGAIN. As well as netiquette, you also violate a fairly normal principle of language. If you talk about yourself in the first person all the time, you sound like a nutter. Go on, reply o this post saying "I am not a nutter." If you say "Mentiflex is not a nutter" it won't count.

Okay, rambly-nut boy. Good to see you providing citations for your claims, but seriously, Rolling Stone? Rolling bloody Stone? Not Time, or Newsweek, or New Scientist, or anything? Sorry we couldn't be bothered to come back from the future for you, but that conference was for time-travellers, thus relying on TIME TRAVEL being invented/legal etc. so it's more their problem than the AI community's.

Nice reference to the Salons btw. Dunno where you got that idea, but as I was saying, we like all of those folks. Quote from the Wiki "Most were poor quality, leading to ridicule in the press." Where do you fit in I wonder. Isn't it true that you piss off most of the bazaar too? Opinion varies as to when/if the singularity will happen, but it really isn't now. Not in any way that makes any sense. Infinite technological expansion? Do you know something about the PS3 that we don't?

Oh, we are so not Luddites. I mean, duh! Oh, and spamming AI forums does not constitute spreading the word of AI. We've heard the word, we've even heard your word. What we've not really seen are your actions. Mark Tilden was a maverick. He was an outsider. What did he do? Spam and troll and talk about himself in the third person, or even first person plural? Nope, he ended up with a shed-load of cash and being the darling of the robotics community 'cos of Robosapiens. Can't you get your software to do something useful, instead of bullying us to do it all the time.

I ascribe no dark motives to you. My only concern is that you might actually be mental. It's my background that means that I care :) I'm worried about you dear. You never actually seem to really engage with people in conversations on the internet, I only hope you have real life friends.

See more of the latest robot news!

Recent blogs

15 May 2015 mwaibel (Master)
14 May 2015 Petar.Kormushev (Master)
6 May 2015 spirit (Journeyer)
28 Feb 2015 steve (Master)
20 Feb 2015 shimniok (Journeyer)
19 Feb 2015 Flanneltron (Journeyer)
14 Nov 2014 Sergey Popov (Apprentice)
14 Nov 2014 wedesoft (Master)
5 Aug 2014 svo (Master)
3 Jul 2014 jmhenry (Journeyer)
Share this page