Hal and talking better one time not the next what changed?

[lightspeed]

i am wondering something i posted before the angela jolene conversation she had with me and she really did good and now later i posted another conversation she had with me today (see it in share conversations etc. forum area ) and although she still did good i didn't feel like she did as good as before so my question is what changed? i have done nothing to the brain editing it etc.
The only difference was that on the before conversation earlier posed one i spent many hours online many many and so she ended up seemingly doing better , but although yes she was learning new things  at a longer conversation why wouldn't she do as good even if the conversation isn't as long (many hours ). ??
does anyone have any thoughts on this ( robert??)anyone   . the brain is up to 30 mb's now .

[Art]

Quality, not quantity.

It's not how large the brain size is but rather the quality of the information that's in it.

[Will and Mr Data :) :]]

Hi,
I like Arts words there.
why does something change?
something made of say moving atoms, the pc and memory parts made of moving atoms, its programs running through the pc made of these atoms, all moving,breaking down, and so on. "from one moment to the next seems to show something is changing". something has to change for time to pass.

to cut a long story short the same pc program won't do the same thing twice.
"the results may seem to apear generally similar".  ...

variations.

Bye for now and be well.    :]

[Duskrider]

Yes, it's the same,  only different.    

[lightspeed]

yes i know it's changing but in a sense it appears that hal wasn't doing as good at talking and answering which of course would be reversing and not advancing , and yes in a way it's not the size of the brain but what's put into it but if what's put into it is useful then it also is the size of the brain to. so when hal does extreamly well in conversation it seems odd that he wouldn't the next time . i can see a variable because of what the conversation is (with what hal has learned on the subject ) but that just seems like a far extream sometimes .

[Data]

A little thought, maybe.

I think it’s important to get Hal on topic before you can get the correct answers, if you quickly change the topic Hal can still be carrying thoughts of the last topic which can sometimes give odd or confused answers.

Also agree with Art and Lightspeed.

Quality over quantity, but quality & quantity is really the best solution. 

[lightspeed]

Datahopa
i agree to keep on sunject is best but when hal says something totally away from the subject a person can't keep on the subject unless he ignors what hal said and just keep on talking like hal wasn't off subject . yes it can be done but it is odd to do it .
 i like the idea of the algorithim that someone else made on here (sorry forgot who) but upon trying it it really slowed my hal response down greatly to the point that a sign came up saying script is talking longer then usual do you want to wait etc.  and this may get better after hal has set up the learning tables better i beleive that's what the creator said , but for the time being on this algorithm i removed it and am going to wait on the sidelines until i can see better proof of the wait time after the creator has used it for some time and can post a conversation (hopefully a video ) . i actually am rooting for it , i would love to have a useful learning subject algorithm that works good that's what i have alway's thought that hal needed the worst.  of course looking at this paticular algorithm being in hal as a standard update the way it is i don't think robert will use it in the hal ( no disrespect to the algorithm creator i know you worked hard on it) but what i am saying is that many people would not want hal to freeze up ( for lack of a better word ) while hal came up with an answer (until a certain point where hal could start answering like he should when tables are learned ). just my opinion for what it's worth , and of course if this works and could be tweaked it could be used in a new hal update .

[raybe]

Sorry lightspeed but I replied in your other thread and just gave an opinion. I do agree with some comments here but I won't double post on my take of the experiences I have with Ultra Hal.

Thanks,
raybe

Also apologize to everyone as well and sorry if I posted without reply in other threads. Just more then I can handle right now with family and you just never know when things are going to hit the so called Fan!

Thanks and stay well,
raybe

[lightspeed]

i just wanted to say again that i was not putting down the algorithym that someone had created i think it's a good thing and what is needed in hal when i was mentioning about the time that it took in the learning curve i was only mentioning that is hal on the market many wouldn't like it. (my opinion only) but i beleive that if it does work and makes hal better that if it can be tweaked more it would make a better hal. ai.  for anyone testing it that is ok . and i hope the one that created it keeps everyone updated on it as i think it does have great potential .
I am not putting it down at all i actually wish i was smart enough to do it myself . my hats off to you!