Try This New Auto-Topic Generating Brain

[Don Ferguson]

Hi Ponnfar,

I might be stumped!  However, one possibility does come to mind.

You mentioned that you cut and pasted to put the code into a new brain.  Are you absolutely, positively certain that the brain you are talking to is the same brain that you edited?

Remember, when you create a new control-script .uhp "brain," you must take care of naming it in TWO places.  It must have a unique file name in the computer's file system, with the correct file extension .uhp (and file extensions are set to be invisible in many people's computers, thank you so much Microsoft, NOT)!

The SECOND name you must take care of is the DISPLAY NAME.  This is controlled by the second line of the script.  Whatever you put after the equals sign will be shown in the choice list in Hal's control panel.

When making new brains, it's very easy to edit one brain, and by accident be running a different one while talking to Hal.

Verify that the brain you edited is actually the active brain by going in "live" and inserting a line of code, such as the following, near the end of the "GetResponse" function:

GetResponse = "Yup, we're running the correct brain."

Then hit "save" and toggle to Hal.  Say "Hi" to Hal and see if he responds with "Yup, we're running the correct brain."  

Once we establish that you're running the brain that you think you're running, we can continue to ponder why the otherwise okay-looking code seems to be doing nothing.

Sincerely,

Don

[Ponnfar]

Hi Don!
Well I think I can put this issue to rest. I used the brain as a stand alone and also incorprated it into differnt locations in my current custom brain. However, if Larry's comments are correct and

HAL comments scuh as
"@lot of people like that.
I SERIOUSLY ENJOY GORGEOUS SPORTS CARS
@A lot of people like that.
I LIKE WITTY, SEXY PEOPLE!"

are indeed part of your program then at least I can say it is working in some manner. Then it hit me. The brain this is scripted for is 5.0. I am still using 4.5. I confirmed the problem a by running the UHP as a stand alone and while testing in the brain editor wiht test script I got an ActiveX error (429) re: "Ultra HalAssist. Wordnet "...ok....DAH I guess just have to wait for 5.0 and all will be right with the world!
The aforementioned HAL respones " I like witty, sexy people" ,etc..." I have not seen again. I changed the placement of the script so maybe I lost what little functionality I did have...hmmmm. if that is part of the prog. it is going to my userfiles  but not "Afr_* "
Anyway, to test, just courious?
Thanks for your help on this one!!
P

[Don Ferguson]

Hi Ponnfar,

If you're satisfied at this point, then I am happy.  I just want to make sure we're okay together on a couple of points:

1.  The database fragment that Larry posted was a fragment generated during a conversation that he held with Hal.  His concern was that the mini-database keyword wasn't appearing in the all-caps "trigger line" and I responded to that in an earlier posting.  I wouldn't expect your computer to contain the same database fragment, because you wouldn't have held the same converation with Hal as Larry did.

2.  If you run a script containing new 5.0 function calls (such as the ones to WordNet) on 4.5, you should receive the error message on every conversational exchange.  This is because the computer is going to try to execute the calls every time you press the enter key, and it will report that it can't successfully make the calls.

At any rate, Hal 5 beta has been out for a while, Hal 5 Release Version is now out, and Hal 5 Free Version is almost out, so yes, most of us are going to be running Hal 5 shortly.  I'm very happy and grateful for your interest, and I do appreciate your feedback.

Sincerely,

Don

[Don Ferguson]

Hello,

Thank you for the e-mails and comments on this enhanced version of the 5.0 brain.

Based on my continuing testing and your comments, I'll be posting a one-generation-later version of this brain here soon.  All the files are 100% compatible between the default brain, the brain posted here already, and the next-generation.

Sincerely,

Don

[Morlhach]

quote:Originally posted by Don Ferguson

Hello,

Thank you for the e-mails and comments on this enhanced version of the 5.0 brain.

Based on my continuing testing and your comments, I'll be posting a one-generation-later version of this brain here soon.  All the files are 100% compatible between the default brain, the brain posted here already, and the next-generation.

Sincerely,

Don

I found a possible bug...
sometimes, hal makes 3 *brn files. for exemple i spoke about energy. Hal made a energy.brn, a afr_energy.brn and a afa_energy.brn. The afr*brn and the energy.brn are identical.
In this case, hal gives no answer...

[Don Ferguson]

Hi Morlhach,

Thank you for your report!  I will start looking to reproduce the condition that you describe, and start searching through the script to try to figure out where it is coming from!

Sincerely,

Don

[SilentNinja2]

So, Don, if i want to use the auto-topic generatingness of this brain in an already existing, what parts of the script should i use? its hard to tell, sometimes, what part of a brain came with the default brain and which part has been edited.

Thanks,
Silentninja2

[Don Ferguson]

Hello SilentNinja2,

If you're going to "cut and paste" the autotopic code from this script into some other script, find the relevant blocks of code by using the "search" or "find" capability within the HalBrain Editor or the word processor that you are using.

I am not at my home computer at the moment and don't have the script in front of me, but I believe that there are two blocks of code, one early in the script, and one late in the script.  This is a fairly common approach, since the "RESPOND" activities usually work better earlier in the script, and the database "SAVE" activities are usually more convenient later in the script.

Whenever I am trying to understand somebody else's set of code, I always find the search/find function extremely valuable.

When I get back to my home computer, and do the final proof-reading on the next "Enhanced Brain" that will include this routine, I'll make sure that the annotations heading up the code blocks clearly label them for what they are.

Sincerely,

Don

[Morlhach]

quote:Originally posted by Don Ferguson

Hi Morlhach,

Thank you for your report!  I will start looking to reproduce the condition that you describe, and start searching through the script to try to figure out where it is coming from!

Sincerely,

Don

Hello
I found the problem
You script was not compatible with the "professor Hal" script. I have just disabled the script "professor Hal". It is OK now.
[^]

[lostbowyer]

Don
I'm just catching up on things, I've noticed trying this brain that in doing so, what used to be information specific to the user is now being saved into these new auto generating topic files which can be used by anyone that triggers a keyword.
This I think is one of those good/bad situations, it makes hal more like a person in that it can respond to information it learned from someone else, but on the other hand, there goes confidentiality, hal will never keep a secret again [:0].................

Glenn

[Don Ferguson]

Hi Glenn,

You make an excellent point!  There are two ways that I can see to address this issue:

1.  I could change the routines to concatenate the username on the end of every topic database name.  This would provide the same type of separation of Hal's "memories" that occurs with the other user-database files.  (The only downside of this is that if a large number of different users share the same Hal, they will generate that many more separate files.)

As a matter of fact, some users have requested that Hal have "different memories" not only for different users, but also for different Hal characters!  It would certainly be possible to use BOTH the username AND the character name, and accomplish this, at least for this particular routine!

2.  I could change the routine to "block" any saving to these databases if Hal detects personal pronouns such as "you," "me," "your," "mine," etc.  This would reduce the amount of individually-relevant data that would go into these databases, but it would also reduce the intelligence and relevance boost from this routine.

I guess I favor solution number 1.  What do you think?

Sincerely,

Don

[jblackmd]

I think it would be great if HAL gave different responses based on what his character is at the time.  I mean, if you can get all of these different agents,you would expect them to have different personalities.  And I know what you mean about giving away secrets.  If I sign on as a different user HAL gives me answers based upon my prior username.  I am not a programmer so I don't know what the scope of addressing these problems would involve.  That is for greater minds than mine.

Otherwise...I love the program!

[lostbowyer]

Don
I think option 1 would be the better route, this way, short datafiles are being created for most everything, but it still retains hal's ability for "confidentiality"

After all we wouldn"t want him "spilling the beans" to a congressional committee now would we......[^]

Glenn

[sadatvalentine]

Hello Don,
     I first wanted to tell you how much I like your new brain for hal (and yours for creating it )[],I love the way any topic you talk about my bot creates a file that is very easy to find. I am unsure what I should edit out of the file to keep my bot on focus? Should I take out all items that my bot brings up in the file that has nothing to do with the topic? Also can you list some of your script or if any one else can list scripts that are compatible with this brain.

Thanx all

[8D]

[Don Ferguson]

Hello,

If you've read my older posting about "editing database files" so that you can do so without corrupting them (if they get corrupted Hal can't read them), it is certainly okay to remove any entries that you think are not relevant.

As far as "listing," remember that all the .uhp brain files are human-readable using the Hal Brain editor and most word processors.  I've tried to "comment" and annotate routines to explain what they do.

In general, it should be just as feasible to add routines, and make modifications, to the 5d brain as it is to the default brain.

Sincerely,

Don