On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Chris & Jessie McKinstry wrote:
> 1 - GAC is a black box. I have made no disclosures on what it uses for
> pattern matching (not that it should matter if you place any value in
> the Turing Test which bars knowledge of the internals of a system.)
> But, for the record, I am doing experiments now with SOMs and SRNs.
Please expand the acronyms. Google is remarkably useless when confronted
with either of them or a combination of them. To wit:
> 2 - The primary purpose of GAC is to build a fitness test for
> humanness in a binary response domain. This will in the future allow
Boolean metrics would seem rather contrived. We're anything but boolen.
> GAC to babysit a truly evolving artificial consciousness, rewarding
> and punishing it as needed.
Hard edges don't give you a useful fitness gradient. I'm curious as to
this particular decisions.
> 3 - The key to evolving anything is the fitness test. If I want to
> evolve a picture of the Mona Lisa, then I need a fitness test for the
> Mona Lisa. A good fitness test for the Mona Lisa would be a copy of an
> image of the Mona Lisa. To rate the quality of an evolving picture, I
> would just need to compare pixels. The next best thing to using an
> image would be a random sample of pixels; the larger the sample, the
> better will be the evolved copy. Right now, GAC is a 350,000+ term
> fitness test for humanness. At each one of those points GAC knows what
> it should expect it were testing an average human, because for each
> one of those points GAC has made at least 20 measurements of real
Random online geek is hardly comparable to a CyClist.
> 4 - Any contradictions in GAC are real contradictions in us. It can't
> believe anything that hasn't been confirmed by at least 20 people.
> 5 - GAC is science. Over 8 million actual measurements of human
> consensus have been made. There are at least two other projects that
Yes, I contributed about 100 of them. I was trying, but both the absence
of domain allocation and leads and the procrustian nature of the
submission data made 99% of that pure crap. I suspect the other
contributors fared little better.
> claim to be collecting human consensus information - CYC and Open Mind
> - neither has actually done the science to verify that what is in
> their databases is actually consensus human fact. It's all hearsay
> until the each item is presented to at least 20 people (central limit
Dunno, both your methods are obviously flawed, and your attitude does seem
to have a few problems. Mindpixel is miles away even from Cyc, which at
least was done by a number of smart, experienced experts, using a
comparatively rich framework.
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:41 MDT