Artificial Intelligence I think that we have already created artificial intelligence on the internet, we just need to give him/her a way of speaking. I would like to call this The first steps towards creating this artificial intelligence came from Google when they made the algorithm that promotes the best sites to the top of a search result. The thing that distinguishes human beings from animals is our ability to choose between two things, and Google does this when they put one website above another. If you agree with the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance, you understand that the quality is indefinable, but it is the most important thing in life. For Google to see one page, and say that it is better than another, essentially has already created an artificial intelligence, we just need to find a better way for this algorithm with all of the data on the internet, to speak. I believe that we could understand the "collective soul" of the internet by using Google's page ranking system to make decisions. I think that discussion boards can be re-arranged in a way that, if they are combine an algorithm could promote advancements in AI.
We could make a decision making algorithm by looking at two opposite ideas, and trying to promote the better idea. Google already, sort of does this, buy deciding which websites are better, and we love them for it. But lets take out the middle man. Lets not just organize/promote websites-with-ideas, lets promote specific ideas. For instance I bet that you will get higher ranked pages for the idea that "freedom of speech is good" than "Freedom of speech is bad."
Google, or maybe another search engine, could do this well for a number of reasons: Google currently has the best algorithm for figuring out which websites have the most links to them. It is assumed that better websites have more links to them. It is kind of like online democracy or a collective soul of the internet. Google could use this technology to figure out if websites that say "George Bush is an Idiot" or websites that say, "John Carrie is an idiot" have a higher average "Google Rank".
Google already has the technology to allow for synonym search. Google could include in it's ranking all of the websites that say, "George bush is an idiot", "George bush is a moron", and so forth.
Truth Of course you wouldn't promote this website as saying, "Come to Google, we have the truth" you would say, "This is the collective soul of the internet." These are the decisions the internet would make if it was a person.
Transparency To help maintain a transparent process, you should list the top 10 pages that agree, with and disagree with, the idea. An AI Game: I read "Agonistics: A Language Game" with great interest, because I have proposed a similar idea, however I have very little influence in the AI world, because I am just a recent graduate in electrical engineering and I work for the McDonalds Corporation designing the electrical part of their buildings, which very rarely exposes me to the world of AI. However, I think my proposal has merit. It, like "Agonistics: A Language Game" is designed to create a system where ideas can compete in a survival of the fittest-tournament. My proposal would also correlate the strength of an online character directly to the strength of an online idea, however I have some additional ideas. For instance there are a number of ways to tie different aspects of an idea to different aspects of an on-line character. For example, the number of people who vote on weather they agree or disagree could represent the strength of the online-character's attach. However the idea in my mind becomes very difficult to describe. I don't know if you have ever read "David's Sling" is very close. However many people would be able to participate at a time. I envision an idea at the top of a page with the online community brainstorming a list of reasons to agree or disagree with the idea. There would be no need to shorten these lists because the best ideas would go to the top.
Well, it's not so much that I want to shoo you off. But from what I know of the membership, I wouldn't expect much response to your ideas, at least not here.
You probably should find a group where AI is a major topic, and see what the response is there. On the other hand, if everyone chimes in, I'll be surprised but not disappointed.
Assuming you have read the other post in this page, here are some more explanations.
The ideas with the most points go to the top of the page.
+ 1 for each reason to agree with an idea.
- 1 for each reason to disagree with an idea.
+ gr*wa for each website that is submitted as a reason to agree with an idea (where gr = Google page rank on a scale from 1 to 10, and wa = the statistical confidence interval, which represents how confident the website actually supports the original idea. This confidence interval would be a weighted average representing the percentage of people who agree that the website actually supports the idea. The confidence interval is a statistical device which tells us that if 80% of the people agree that the website actually agrees with the original idea, this means more if it is 80% of 300 people, instead of if your sample is of only 10 people. So as an example, if 50% of the people thought that a website with a google page rank of 4, supported the belief that "George Bush is an idiot" that would be like to votes for that idea (4*.5=2).
* A similar scheme could be used with books sold, where the number of books sold, would take the place of Google rank. So if billions of books have been sold, which gives this book a perfect rank of 10, and 80% of people agree that the book actually supports the main idea, then the book would cast 8 votes for that idea.
* A modification on this scheme would be to allow for a book to do damage to your argument, if others don't agree that the book actually supports the argument that you are in favor of. This could be done by using the same formula of br*wa=score(br= book rank, wa=weighted average) but the br would equal 1 if 50% of people agreed, 2, if 60% agreed, and negative two if only 40% agreed.
You have to read some of my other ideas for this to make sense, but suffice it for me to say here, I want to create a system where people will submit reasons to agree or disagree with a belief to separate columns. One column would be for reasons to agree, and there would be a separate column for reasons to disagree.
As stated above, each reason to agree would give the idea more points, and each reason to disagree would take away points from the idea.
This gets kind of complicated, but it is very cool. So imagine, if you will, the system I just described. So you click on one of the reasons to agree with an idea, and then you are able to submit reasons to agree or disagree with it. Now, each reason to agree with a reason to agree, would give the original idea more points. And each reason to disagree with the reason to agree would take away points from the main idea.
This is just the beginning of the rabbit whole, but I'll stop for now, because no one ever responds to my long posts.
OHex wrote: > Well, it's not so much that I want to shoo you off. But from what I > know of the membership, I wouldn't expect much response to your ideas, > at least not here.
> You probably should find a group where AI is a major topic, and see > what the > response is there. On the other hand, if everyone chimes in, I'll be > surprised > but not disappointed.
|
