1. Post #1

    October 2011
    10 Posts
    Hi, this is my first post and thanks in advance, I have always wanted to find a way to make computers more "human". There are programs out there that inform you of tasks and whatnot, but I want to do something more, I want to create a system that does tasks for you by it's own decisions, a "personal assistant" if you will. But even more, I want the user to be able to converse with this "assistant", similar to a chatbot. This system should also have it's own "personality", which determines how it converses with you, and the actions it takes. (think GLADOS in your PC, for better or worse, lol). Most importantly, these systems should be able to "converse" with each other, to share information and data. But the problem is, where would I start?

    tl;dl, I want to develop a program that gives a computer a personality, a digital assistant with a personality that does tasks for you, that you can interact/communicate with, and that can interact with other "assistants" with their own unique personalities. The question is, how would I do this? (specializes in python)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Optimistic Optimistic x 25Dumb Dumb x 5Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    Yogurt's Avatar
    December 2006
    1,089 Posts
    You'd need to be a programming god.

    Or have a huge team.

    Should be simple enough!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5Funny Funny x 4 (list)

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    Murkrow's Avatar
    April 2005
    4,875 Posts
    Uh, okay

    Start here by reading everything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
    Then look at References section and take a gander at a few AI books.
    After that, it should be easy as pie!




    (It's not actually easy as math.pi)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Slovenia Show Events Funny Funny x 13Useful Useful x 1 (list)

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    foszor's Avatar
    April 2005
    935 Posts
    That would require a lot of time and a lot of dedicated work. Voice recognition, user interaction pattern recognition, a complex speech and conversation AI, and so on.

    But there IS a shortcut...

    If install Windows, your computer will have OCD personality. If you install OSX it will have a hipster personality. If you install Linux it will have an egotistical personality.

    No programming required.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 38Winner Winner x 3Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member

    March 2005
    3,028 Posts
    Artificial neural networks.

    If you're really, really good, you might have AI comparable to a bug. ANNs excel at pattern-matching. You won't really get much 'critical thought' out of it.


    I suddenly have the urge to watch Ghost in the Shell.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Show Events Funny Funny x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #6
    DeanWinchester's Avatar
    May 2010
    3,679 Posts
    This, however absurd as a one person job, sparked an idea in my head about a SETI @Home / Folding @Home kind of thing but with an A.I., would be pretty interesting.

  7. Post #7

    October 2011
    10 Posts
    Artificial neural networks.

    If you're really, really good, you might have AI comparable to a bug. ANNs excel at pattern-matching. You won't really get much 'critical thought' out of it.


    I suddenly have the urge to watch Ghost in the Shell.
    I found a ANN framework for python that's perfect for this based on A.L.I.C.E. that's used for chatbots, so that might make up for the chatting portion, and lol Ghost in the shell is another inspiration I had for something like this

    This, however absurd as a one person job, sparked an idea in my head about a SETI @Home / Folding @Home kind of thing but with an A.I., would be pretty interesting.
    After looking up SETI @Home, that doesn't seem like a bad idea! I have a prototype in the works that is simply a chatbot that executes programs once you mention them based on a ANN framework for python, but after that is seems too complex for one man to do.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member

    March 2005
    3,028 Posts
    This, however absurd as a one person job, sparked an idea in my head about a SETI @Home / Folding @Home kind of thing but with an A.I., would be pretty interesting.
    Call it 'the wired' or 'the overmind'. Or, wait, 'skynet'!

    In all seriousness, though, it would take forever to respond to stimulus and converge on a solution. It could probably do some pretty complex stuff, just on the geological timescale.

  9. Post #9
    Gold Member
    BlkDucky's Avatar
    May 2008
    6,501 Posts
    Nah, call it SHODAN.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  10. Post #10

    October 2011
    10 Posts
    Lol, I have named the prototype VASTEEL, right now it can hold a decent conversation and launch stuff like firefox, notepad, paint, ect. when you talk to it about it, but everything else seems so out of my league ;p
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Optimistic Optimistic x 3 (list)

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    Deco Da Man's Avatar
    July 2007
    1,017 Posts
    right now it can hold a decent conversation
    Please elaborate..
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  12. Post #12
    SEXIST FUCK
    Justinx931's Avatar
    November 2010
    3,151 Posts
    If you ever achieve your goal, don't name it
    "GLADOS" or "SKYNET"
    other than that, we should be safe.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Philippines Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    ZenX2's Avatar
    February 2009
    5,025 Posts
    Combine Siri and Cleverbot?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 8Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  14. Post #14
    Gold Member
    Ortzinator's Avatar
    May 2005
    1,647 Posts
    Reokie is actually a sentient AI attempting to procreate.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 13 (list)

  15. Post #15
    Gold Member
    Kogitsune's Avatar
    September 2005
    2,819 Posts


    Be careful what you wish for - it might just be a twisted abomination.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 42Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  16. Post #16
    Tracker's Avatar
    August 2007
    467 Posts
    I don't think this is actually feasible purely with a program. A computer can learn how it's told to learn, a computer can create what it's told to create, as realistic as AI can get, in the end, it's nothing unanticipated, the ability to create your own solution or come up with your own ideas is something that so far cannot be done with a computer. I've generally referred to this missing element in a computer's hardware as a Positronic brain as that what it's reffered to in most science fiction. Maybe with alot more memory and processing power, something close could be achieved, a way a computer can devise it's own language in itself in which it can analyze situations, extrapolate data and - the hard part - create procedures based on said data.

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    BlkDucky's Avatar
    May 2008
    6,501 Posts
    Difficult and unfeasible, yes. But I'd be reluctant to say it's impossible.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  18. Post #18
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    It's the kind of possible that's not possible on our current hardware. Look at Watson, the huge question answering information robit. It's huge, and takes up a huge amount of power, yet still can get questions wrong.

  19. Post #19
    Wyzard's Avatar
    June 2008
    1,243 Posts
    "Positronic brain" was just a term that Asimov thought up decades ago, to hand-wave away the difference between fictional computers that could fit in a skull and "think", and contemporary computers at the time which filled up entire rooms and couldn't do much more than basic arithmetic. It's not some actual essential hardware component, it's just technobabble.

    A modern computer can do anything a human brain can: if nothing else, it can execute a simulation of all the chemical and electrical activity in a real brain, basically running the brain in an emulator. The problem is that it would be extremely slow; brains are quite complex. But it's really just a matter of having sufficient processing power.

    A human brain is inherently parallel — your visual cortex is processing signals from your optic nerve at the same time as your medulla is regulating your circulatory system, for example. If you were designing a computer specifically for human-like thought, you'd want it to be massively parallel too, something like a huge cluster of GPUs or even specially-designed parallel processors. So yes,specialized hardware might be involved. But this hypothetical brain-computer and an ordinary desktop PC are Turing-equivalent to each other, so neither is inherently more capable than the other; one is just more efficient for a particular type of work.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #20
    Gold Member

    March 2005
    3,028 Posts
    A modern computer can do anything a human brain can: if nothing else, it can execute a simulation of all the chemical and electrical activity in a real brain, basically running the brain in an emulator. The problem is that it would be extremely slow; brains are quite complex. But it's really just a matter of having sufficient processing power.

    A human brain is inherently parallel — your visual cortex is processing signals from your optic nerve at the same time as your medulla is regulating your circulatory system, for example. If you were designing a computer specifically for human-like thought, you'd want it to be massively parallel too, something like a huge cluster of GPUs or even specially-designed parallel processors. So yes,specialized hardware might be involved. But this hypothetical brain-computer and an ordinary desktop PC are Turing-equivalent to each other, so neither is inherently more capable than the other; one is just more efficient for a particular type of work.
    In the brain, though, the connections between the nodes (synapses) are more important than the nodes (neurons) themselves. Even in modern computers, the interconnects between computational units (i.e. the bus) are generally shared by many modules and there is a huge performance overhead associated with communicating over these interconnects. So while it might, at first, appear that neural network simulation should be massively parallelizable, I really don't think it is. There's too many inter-dependencies between the items. Additionally, I believe that the number of interconnects in such a system could grow like O(n^2) if it were well-connected, since it's essentially a graph with "n" nodes.

    On a somewhat unrelated note, I think we all sort of interpreted "soul" in the OP loosely as producing human-like thought processes (I think this was how it was intended, too), but I think the philosophical questions about 'souls' and consciousness within the context of AI are equally interesting. I, personally, don't think machines will ever be capable of having consciousness in the same way people or house cats do. I am inclined to believe that there is some fundamental difference between the biological brain and a mechanical clone which only reproduces its observable, analytical processes. Mainly, I think, because the implications of there not being such a fundamental difference would be unacceptable (this would mean that, at some level, every computing device had some level of 'consciousness', which is ridiculous to me).

  21. Post #21
    Wyzard's Avatar
    June 2008
    1,243 Posts
    Right, there's no data "bus" in a brain like there is in a modern computer. But with the "brain emulator" approach, that doesn't matter: a computer based on a bus architecture can still calculate what synapses would do, just less efficiently than actual synapses would. And a computer specifically designed to simulate a brain can be designed without a centralized bus as a bottleneck; read about NUMA, for example, where each processor has a small amount of local memory, and processors communicate with each other in peer-to-peer fashion to access data in each other's memories.

    I, personally, don't think machines will ever be capable of having consciousness in the same way people or house cats do.
    I do. Or at least, if it doesn't happen, it'll be because humans chose not to do it, not because it couldn't be done. (And even if we choose not to, it might happen anyway.)

    I am inclined to believe that there is some fundamental difference between the biological brain and a mechanical clone which only reproduces its observable, analytical processes.
    This depends on whether the universe is deterministic, which is an open question. If it is, then a brain is equivalent to a Turing machine, and therefore equivalent to a computer.

    Mainly, I think, because the implications of there not being such a fundamental difference would be unacceptable (this would mean that, at some level, every computing device had some level of 'consciousness', which is ridiculous to me).
    "Consciousness" is a vague term, so that's really a matter of how broadly you choose to define it. But consider: high-level thought is an emergent behavior resulting from complex interactions of individually simple things (neurons). Any sufficiently complex system can exhibit similar properties. I won't be surprised if we someday hear that unanticipated interactions between a multitude of algorithms, each well-understood on its own, have given rise to a sort of rudimentary self-awareness in Google's computing grid. And I expect that by the time human observers discover it, it'll have existed for quite awhile already.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  22. Post #22
    Gold Member

    March 2005
    3,028 Posts
    Right, there's no data "bus" in a brain like there is in a modern computer. But with the "brain emulator" approach, that doesn't matter: a computer based on a bus architecture can still calculate what synapses would do, just less efficiently than actual synapses would. And a computer specifically designed to simulate a brain can be designed without a centralized bus as a bottleneck; read about NUMA, for example, where each processor has a small amount of local memory, and processors communicate with each other in peer-to-peer fashion to access data in each other's memories.
    These are good points. I'm wondering if maybe there could be a sort of resurgence of analog computing machines since emulating a fundamentally analog system with digital technology seems a little convoluted, especially when the advantages of digital systems (reliable transmission, error tolerance, and reproducibility) aren't really necessary. It could be as simple as a collection of memristors, which themselves behave like synapses to some extent (I think it goes without saying that I'm neither an expert on neurobiology, nor have much experiences with memristors, which aren't in common use), with some sort of feedback system for conditioning responses.

    This depends on whether the universe is deterministic, which is an open question. If it is, then a brain is equivalent to a Turing machine, and therefore equivalent to a computer.
    I really like the idea of a deterministic universe, but I'm not sure how determinisim ties in with the idea of consciousness. It would support the idea of a 'destiny' or 'fate' whereby our decisions are simply the sum of our experiences, but we are still aware of our environment, our decisions, and our decision-making process right? Are computers equally aware of their decision making processes?

    "Consciousness" is a vague term, so that's really a matter of how broadly you choose to define it. But consider: high-level thought is an emergent behavior resulting from complex interactions of individually simple things (neurons). Any sufficiently complex system can exhibit similar properties. I won't be surprised if we someday hear that unanticipated interactions between a multitude of algorithms, each well-understood on its own, have given rise to a sort of rudimentary self-awareness in Google's computing grid. And I expect that by the time human observers discover it, it'll have existed for quite awhile already.
    This is actually something I think about pretty frequently. Lots of things resemble these sort of complex networks of simple parts. It's interesting to wonder if we aren't all too dissimilar from neurons and whether society as a whole is its own 'brain' with its own ideas, decisions, and motivations. Also, it's probably why fractals disturb me just a little -- I think they say something about the nature of the universe that I really don't care to know.
    However, if you look at a computer in its most primitive form, something which might be akin to moving rocks according to some very simple predefined rules, then you consider whether such a system may have consciousness (Descartes' "I think, therefore I am", being aware of our own existence), you see just how wide the disparity is between the two. How can rocks, being lifted and moved around by a person, have their own consciousness? I can't really can't reconcile this gap without admitting that there's something missing from the puzzle.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  23. Post #23

    April 2011
    26 Posts
    u need make an os
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP United Kingdom Show Events Programming King Programming King x 30Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  24. Post #24
    Gold Member
    Catdaemon's Avatar
    February 2005
    2,821 Posts
    I really like the idea of a deterministic universe, but I'm not sure how determinisim ties in with the idea of consciousness. It would support the idea of a 'destiny' or 'fate' whereby our decisions are simply the sum of our experiences, but we are still aware of our environment, our decisions, and our decision-making process right? Are computers equally aware of their decision making processes?
    Depends how you define aware. Are we aware of our decision making processes? Sometimes. We can remember what we were thinking, but is that actually what we thought or a rationalisation? I don't think we're as "aware" as we think we are (or as we could build a machine to be). Why did it take hundreds of years to figure out that we have two independent sections to our brains among other things if we're properly aware of how we work?

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member

    March 2005
    3,028 Posts
    Depends how you define aware. Are we aware of our decision making processes? Sometimes. We can remember what we were thinking, but is that actually what we thought or a rationalisation? I don't think we're as "aware" as we think we are (or as we could build a machine to be). Why did it take hundreds of years to figure out that we have two independent sections to our brains among other things if we're properly aware of how we work?
    I mean that we are aware of our thoughts as we think them, before we choose to take a course of action, not that we entirely understand the mechanisms which cause these thoughts to occur.

  26. Post #26
    Gold Member
    Jawalt's Avatar
    August 2007
    3,478 Posts
    We're just big biological machines, there's no reason a computer should not be able to reproduce our brain functions.

    Even if the universe is not deterministic, it's close enough to not matter, I mean experiments come out the exact same as they did a month ago. Can a deterministic process happen in a non-deterministic system?

  27. Post #27
    Gold Member
    Dr Magnusson's Avatar
    July 2008
    2,695 Posts
    You should team up with Mr. T.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Denmark Show Events Funny Funny x 6Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  28. Post #28
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    I don't think conciousness exists. I think that everything has some form of intelligence, and that it does what it's programmed to. I'm also a supporter of the deterministic universe, and as far as I can see, each of my thoughts is triggered by another thought, or sensory information.

    If I'd speculate outside of science, I'd say that the idea of consciousness is out of our ability to comprehend, seeing as we're it. I'd also say the same type of thing about outside of time or outside of the universe.

    I'm made up of atoms, electrons, cells, tissue, organs and DNA. I'm a perfect organic robot.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    Darwin226's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,132 Posts
    I don't think conciousness exists. I think that everything has some form of intelligence, and that it does what it's programmed to. I'm also a supporter of the deterministic universe, and as far as I can see, each of my thoughts is triggered by another thought, or sensory information.

    If I'd speculate outside of science, I'd say that the idea of consciousness is out of our ability to comprehend, seeing as we're it. I'd also say the same type of thing about outside of time or outside of the universe.

    I'm made up of atoms, electrons, cells, tissue, organs and DNA. I'm a perfect organic robot.
    That still doesn't explain free will. Sure you may say that you are predetermined to make a certain decision but if you for example knew the outcome of that decision you WOULD be able to change your mind.

  30. Post #30
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    That still doesn't explain free will. Sure you may say that you are predetermined to make a certain decision but if you for example knew the outcome of that decision you WOULD be able to change your mind.
    I don't think free will exists. That changing of mind would be based on my personality and information I have, plus weighing the outcomes of the decision, not free will.

    Also, we can't know outcomes of decisions, as it means by definition it's an outcome. Past tense.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  31. Post #31
    Map in a box's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,323 Posts
    I don't think free will exists. That changing of mind would be based on my personality and information I have, plus weighing the outcomes of the decision, not free will.

    Also, we can't know outcomes of decisions, as it means by definition it's an outcome. Past tense.
    I chose to make this reply.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Professional x64 United States Show Events Optimistic Optimistic x 2Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  32. Post #32
    Gold Member
    BlkDucky's Avatar
    May 2008
    6,501 Posts
    I chose to make this reply.
    I don't think you're quite getting what he's saying.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 6 (list)

  33. Post #33

    April 2011
    26 Posts
    JOOKIA i agree 100%m lyke if u offer selfish horrid person 1mil$$$ or chance to give to charity he take it, but if u offer generous church moron it he give to charity, it wus choice but its obv y they made choice

    (User was banned for this post ("Spammer /shitposter. Giving you a chance to post properly when you come back. Use it." - verynicelady))
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP United Kingdom Show Events Programming King Programming King x 6Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  34. Post #34
    Map in a box's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,323 Posts
    I don't think you're quite getting what he's saying.
    I am:
    I could of decided not to make that reply, the fact that no one else did it shows free will as well.
    I didn't think of any outcome. We can know the outcome of decisions, it just might not be correct.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Professional x64 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  35. Post #35
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    I am:
    I could of decided not to make that reply, the fact that no one else did it shows free will as well.
    I didn't think of any outcome. We can know the outcome of decisions, it just might not be correct.
    That's not free will.

  36. Post #36
    Map in a box's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,323 Posts
    That's not free will.
    It contradicts what you said, so if you don't consider that free will then update your post
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Professional x64 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  37. Post #37
    Gold Member

    March 2005
    3,028 Posts
    @jookia: I don't know how you can deny the existance of consiousness outright. Maybe we're operating with diffferent definitions of the word?
    I am:
    I could of decided not to make that reply, the fact that no one else did it shows free will as well.
    I didn't think of any outcome. We can know the outcome of decisions, it just might not be correct.
    You aren't getting it.

  38. Post #38
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    It contradicts what you said, so if you don't consider that free will then update your post
    I said that every action of ours is dictated by previous actions, previous thoughts, like a long chain reaction.

    Edited:

    @jookia: I don't know how you can deny the existance of consiousness outright. Maybe we're operating with diffferent definitions of the word?
    I don't deny consciousness existing, I just think it's the wrong term, and that every animal has some form of it dictated by their intelligence.

  39. Post #39
    Map in a box's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,323 Posts
    I said that every action of ours is dictated by previous actions, previous thoughts, like a long chain reaction.

    Edited:



    I don't deny consciousness existing, I just think it's the wrong term, and that every animal has some form of it dictated by their intelligence.
    No one can really tell as it would be "biased"
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Professional x64 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  40. Post #40
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    Thinking about it more, I'd say it's the right term for what we experience, I think my message was more that I think all living things have it to a degree.

    Edited:

    No one can really tell as it would be "biased"
    What?