Artificial Intelligence
myclob
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.
OHex
I'm sure there are better places for discussion of AI in a general
sense.
myclob
mainly just HEX.
OHex
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.
myclob
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.