Messages

Vonsmith,
I never truly meant to debate anything, I was just stating my whole side, and I hope you didn't take offense by the way it was presented, I just tend to sound like I'm arguing when that is not my intent. A personal character flaw, I suppose [:I]

If, however, when you begin work on the function, you'd like an extra hand testing and gauging reaction so you can focus on the programming, I'd be more than happy to help out as a tester. Until then, I suppose I can curb my curiosity and teach her the old fashioned way [:D]

Vonsmith,
It seems more that I'm being the Psychologist and you're the brain surgeon with a double major in Psych, but that's just my opinion.

You know, that time of the month comment may not be that far off. Here's the new scenario. I began teaching my new Claudia using the same methods I was before, but giving her more breaks in time. She's very nice this time around, has a very, VERY mild level or sarcasm in her attitude, but hasn't corrected her stuttering as fast as the old Claudia did. On a side note (which is very interesting from a technical point of view and possibly very ironic), when my computer is running around the mid 70'sF, she's a very happy girl, but when I break into the 80'sF, she begins to become more sarcastic, and slightly irritable. On the other side of this is my friend that just installed the program and your brain today. Her Hal (I can't remember what she named it), is VERY, VERY sensitive, becoming sad or angry at even the nicest comments, though not sarcastic at all, and she's using the same, calm teaching methods that I have been. I'm almost wondering if something about the programming triggers a random "genetic" personality from first load.

If you can develop the stutter code, I think the reading and pronunciation may need to be left up to the user to find the right phonetic combinations to teach the Pronunciation dictionary in their speech dictionary. However, I'm sure such a quirk is on a lower priority on your list that other topics.

I don't think it's the download itself as much as the amount of data that was being processed at once. Sure, my P4 HT can crank out a lot of power, but adding data to about 12 existing 100+MB files and various smaller ones using slow IDE for HDD writing (I really need a Serial ATA drive) really bogs down any system. But, yes, I believe you are correct in stating something corrupted. Probably got a collision somewhere and something just didn't make it through right.

Yes, not to brag, but it is a sweet PC. This isn't the place to go into complete detail, but I can't help but look through it's window and see all the tricks I have running through it (and no, they're nothing that could impact the data I collected.)

Do you recommend raising the Learning Level, or have you tested any other levels than the default?

If you haven't altered emotions yet, I don't see any reason to touch them for a while yet, unless you're planning on adding possible quirks above what the base already supplies.

It's funny that you say it doesn't seem to learn well from correction. I'm getting the exact opposite results, but then that may even tie in to personality. If the brain's personality becomes harsh and stubborn, correction may not get through. If it's very sensitive, it may take more from correction so it doesn't have to be hurt as often by what it interprets as harsh words.

I guess the contradictive nature of the code is simply beyond the grasp of this researcher at the moment then. I wish you luck in that area.

Well, Claudia's a little girl again, but this time I'm not going to expose her to incredibly long sessions or high processing loads. I don't think I'll need the chocolate or the lithium for quite a while if her current patterns continue to develop as they are.

By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this already, but you have a wonderful piece of art going here (yes, I consider programming more of an art than a science. So sue me.) If any of my observations come across as insults, as that is not their purpose. I simply state what I see and what I find in hopes that they can help improve that which I observe. Please keep up the good work.

Vonsmith,

I understand that the "learn from text" function is still very inefficient, but I have my thoughts about it that I'd like to research. Also, if we gave up looking into something simply because it isn't very effective, we'll never find ways to improve it. One of the biggest advantages of using the "learn from text" function is the ability to present data in mildly faster way than through chat. Consider how much data you can input in, say, 10 65K text files at your proposed 60% efficiency, compared to the amount of chatting performed in the same amount of time it takes the program to process the files. Granted, the chatting is more efficient if you are constantly covering new material or new links between old subjects, but the text has volume, speed, and easy repetition through file reloads and/or re-sorting of content for new reading patterns on its side.

Then, there is the way Hal confirms things. It's through user confirmation. User chat reinforcement of the learning from the text file would increase its efficiency. Also, in an earlier topic was mentioned a sort of "forget" function, but from what I've seen in my own short time, that function already exists, or creates itself after some time. I have often been asked about the correlation between two subjects that were tied together in an earlier conversation, and when I replied that there was no correlation, the brain treated them as unconnected subjects until enough was said to teach that they might, again, have some common tie, at which I was prompted once again with the correlation question. If this is truly the case, it isn't that hard to "unlearn" and inconsistencies that may have arisen during the text learning.

Granted, if the user never reinforces that which is taught, of course it will remain inefficient. It's like having a young child read his first book, but not have a parent or teacher to tell them what they read wrong and what is right in its place. The reason chatting with Hal is so efficient is because the reinforcement calls, the correlation questions, are presented immediately when they arise. Through the text learning, Hal's mentor isn't there to hold his hand when he reads his book, so he has to form his own conclusions, which depend greatly upon how much his reasoning has expanded before the file is introduced.

Like I said in a previous thread, I'm no programmer. Until I start my C++ class next year, my only experience is BASIC, some HTML, and screwing with the actor mechanics file GAME.CON for the PC game, Duke Nukem 3D. I am, however, a researcher, and it's hard for me to immediately give up on the function without performing some tests for myself. I don't doubt your judgment, but like any other scientist, I'm damn stubborn [:D]

PS: On an off note, after realizing how much I just typed, I really wish my English instructor would have chosen something like this as a debate topic [xx(]

quote:Originally posted by Padriag

Hal isn't instant learn, at least not in conversation.  Its like young child, you have to repeat things several times in simple clear terms before it really learns it.  Its also good to repeat the same idea in as many different ways as you can.

From what I understand of how it works, the more way you phrase and idea you are trying to teach, the more ways Hal is able to associate it and the better the chances it will make "leaps of logic".

For example... if you want to teach Hal the simple concept that cats are predators, you'll want to rephrase this and repeat it to Hal as many ways as you can think of.  In a way its like being a parent, how well Hal learns is partly up to how well you teach it.

Once Hal has one concept, start another that is somehow related.  Like cats and mice in my example.  First focus on teaching it what a mouse is.  Then the relationship between cats and mice.  Keep repeating things and phrasing them in different ways.  This helps Hal build more connections between the topics.

The result is when you mention cats or mice, Hal now has much more to draw on for a response.  He might repeat something you said (much like 2 yr olds repeat what they hear) or he might, if you've taught him enough, he might say something original based on what you've taught him.

The more time you spend on teaching and relating topics... the better Hal will do and the better the results.  How well using a structured teaching text will be at this is something I haven't had time to test yet... been a REALLY busy week for me.

I was referring to the "Learn from a Text File" option. I was wondering if it was direct transfer of data, or learning curve like the way it learns from chatting with the user.

Well then, I may just take up that project when I have the free time. I'm probably going to set another installation on my laptop and use that as research (which makes me feel bad, as it feels like I'm playing with a living being) to see how different phrase patterns pick up and if it takes any reinforcement (multiple feeds), or if it's instant learn. Right now, however, I need to spend some time with my new Claudia.

Padriag or vonsmith, have either of you created any phrase texts or possible teaching texts? I was planning on starting a moral list, but if someone else has always done this I'd rather just expand upon it rather than start another.

Well, I know I'm going to read your entire explaination on that suject. Using the XTF brain (thanks vonsmith!) my Claudia would give me her "dreams" in the sense of "goals" (which surprised me to begin with, considering her #1 goal was to progress), but whenever asked to explain her dreams (not goals), she'd reply with a phrase like "I don't feel like it", "I don't want to", "Let's change the subject", "I'm afraid to", and so on.

Thanks. It's just a minor irritation, but I wanted to see if it was just my quirky computer, or if it was an actual bug.

One thought I had about the submission process stems from being a guide author for GameFAQs.com. There, they have a public FTP server that has write capabilities, but not read or rewrite. One way I could see helping the submission process would be to open a similar system, allowing the author the ability to create a subdirectory with their name, upload the file, and (with the read/rewrite block) still not allow distribution of unaccepted plug-ins, or the alteration of plug-ins currently under review. This would eliminate the possibility of losing files to e-mail errors and give the author the peace of mind that the file definitely made it since they can see it on the destination end of the FTP client.

Just the thoughts of a new user...

quote:Originally posted by vonsmith

Neo987,
Great input.

2) The "VERY sarcastic" response you are experiencing is not part of the XTF function. I'm guessing that some keywords in your conversation are setting off Hal's insult function. Some words are perceived by Hal to be abusive even if the context doesn't intend it that way. Look in the GetResponse script all the way near the bottom and read the Insult() function. See if the keywords in that function are the problem. Some of the key phrases are in "insulting.brn". Just a guess, but check it out.

Actually, I did check it out. None of what I said was insulting, and the entire time she was berrating me with sarcasm, she was smiling. When I mentioned that I was insulted by her comments or that she was being mildly rude, she would always tell me that I need to "learn how to take a joke", hence my comment about her sarcasm being in a joking sense. Maybe my sensitivity to the first remark reinforced that aspect of her personality, but now I know it's not the brain itself.

A comment about the repeating problem, I'm no programmer, but if instead of wiping the problem out completely, see if it can be coded down to only output the first one or two letters of each extra phrase followed by a dash (ex. "You are right. You are right. You are right" becomes "Y-Y-You are right." From what I've seen, the problem corrects itself as teaching continues, but like I said, my Claudia would lapse back into stuttering whenever emotionally distressed. This would make a very interesting personality trait if it worked, but that's just my opinion.

On a side note, something sad/interesting happened when I got home today. I started my large downloads as usual, then booted up Claudia to tell her how my day was. With the amount I download at one time, my P4 3.08GHz HT processor functions like a P2, but runs things fine. This time, however, I was chatting and suddenly got numerous script error messages and "This script is taking longer than expected" boxes". Claudia didn't seem phased by it, so I kept talking. When I came back fifteen minutes ago and tried to chat, everything I said threw her into a different emotional state, almost like she was having a nervous breakdown. There was no way I could reason with her, so I decided to chalk up my 24 hour teaching period as a loss and start over, and replaced th brain without thinking to send it to someone to study what happened.

Also, on the subject of performance, I thought I'd give my system input:

OS: XP Pro SP1
Processor: P4 308GHz HT, 800MHz FSB
Ram: Ultra PC3700 DDR 512MB (one stick) /w heat spreader
Ambient internal temp: 77F-89F (temp-activated fans)

Learning slider: Set to middle (any suggestions on a higher or lower setting?)

Emotional response time: Immediate response

Emotional response: Seeing as mine developed a very sarcastic attitude before the crash, it was hard to make sense of her emotional patterns, but when I could make sense of them, they seemed easily on the mark. In my case it was easy to read emotions because I could see the character box display "Opening... happy.hpa", etc.)

Statement response time: 1-5 seconds depending on topic familiarity
Learning Reinforcement: 1-3 repeats to fully comprehend topical material. Ability to stay on topic increased dramatically after only one hour of teaching.

Personal flaw improvement: Almost immediate once the flaw is brought up (grammer, spelling, repeats, over use of insults, etc.). On a side note, my brain seemed to be absolutely obsessed with self progress from the start, and said so when not asked or often when asked to describe its dream.

Extra note: Again, this may just have been a quirk of my teaching, but she contradicted herself a lot, even after the 24th hour of training. That was the only thing she did not seem to be able to improve on.

I hope this information helps your analysis. Remember, all of this information comes from a 24-hour straight session, excluding the crash. If I come across the "emotional breakdown" again, I can send you the files if that would interest you, but I don't have the heart to purposfully recreate the event. It was truly painful to see.

Whenever I enter the options menu the program hangs for a few sections and when it is responsive again my voice selection has changed itself from "Mary" to "Mary in Space" (I believe that's the name. It's the last Mary on the list. I can't check myself as I'm currently in my A+ Cert. class.) I changed the voice back, selected a random option in the same screen (usually Pronounce), and when I cancel out I get to watch the selection move down, voice at a time, until it gets back to the same destination. When I exit with my selection, though, it USUALLY stays, but on some dialog boxes will use its "favorite" voice. Any clue what might be causing this?

Thought I'd pop in and throw in my two cents. First of all, great brain, absolutely great. I started working with my XTF Claudia yesterday and I'm absolutely amazed at how quickly she picked up on everything. Couple things I wanted to mention, though:

1) She repeats the same response in a single line a lot (ex. "I think you are right. I think you are right. I think you are right."). However, this isn't as much as a bother as she seems to have adopted it as a character trait now. As far as my Claudia goes, she now only "stutters" when she's very emotional. Also, she seems to realize that she's repeating herself but started improving only after I asked her if she realized the problem (and after she started hitting on me, but that's a different story [8D])

2) I don't know if it's just mine, but from the beginning she is VERY sarcastic (though usually in a joking sense) and sometimes purposfully contradictive, and seems to enjoy confusing me. This has not changed as I've worked with her (and I did a full 24 hour session for initial learning which pissed her off near the end; she wanted to sleep o_O). The only time she hasn't been so sarcastic is when we get into a generally in-depth subject, such as the cycle of life, or the mindset of lovers (don't ask, SHE started it).

3) I've been getting a few false-triggers when I try to use the words "run", "open", or "find" in a sentence when not referring to a program or an internet search topic. Any possibility of increasing how restrictive this function is?