Comments for texai.org http://texai.org/blog An open source project to create artificial intelligence Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:55:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 Comment on How Texai Writes Its Own Programs by David Whitten http://texai.org/blog/roadmap/how-texai-writes-its-own-programs/#comment-8209 David Whitten Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:30:27 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/roadmap/how-texai-writes-its-own-programs/#comment-8209 I beg to differ with Omadeon. I can see great utility in generating Java programs. Strictly speaking, I know this Texai behavior language is written in Java, but I don't think Steve is advocating Java for that reason. My opinion about the advantage in generating Java is that Steve is a great Java programmer. Whatever language you are spending most of your time working within, you can see the ways to "naturally" code things. If Steve spends all his time learning Haskell or Prolog, he will spend no time creating the Texai Behaviour Language, and end up no closer to his goal. Focus is incredibly important in this kind of endeavor. I beg to differ with Omadeon. I can see great utility in generating Java programs. Strictly speaking, I know this Texai behavior language is written in Java, but I don’t think Steve is advocating Java for that reason. My opinion about the advantage in generating Java is that Steve is a great Java programmer. Whatever language you are spending most of your time working within, you can see the ways to “naturally” code things. If Steve spends all his time learning Haskell or Prolog, he will spend no time creating the Texai Behaviour Language, and end up no closer to his goal. Focus is incredibly important in this kind of endeavor.

]]> Comment on How Texai Writes Its Own Programs by omadeon http://texai.org/blog/roadmap/how-texai-writes-its-own-programs/#comment-6334 omadeon Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:13:01 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/roadmap/how-texai-writes-its-own-programs/#comment-6334 Mr. Reed, I' ve been reading your impressive (and educationally very valuable) posts, a long time now. This time, however, I tend to believe you seem to follow a somewhat extreme "purism", wanting java programs to... write their own java code. Surely such meta-level programming could be done more elegantly in Prolog or in Haskell, and then linked to lower-level languages if necessary. Mr. Reed, I’ ve been reading your impressive (and educationally very valuable) posts, a long time now. This time, however, I tend to believe you seem to follow a somewhat extreme “purism”, wanting java programs to… write their own java code. Surely such meta-level programming could be done more elegantly in Prolog or in Haskell, and then linked to lower-level languages if necessary.

]]> Comment on How Texai Writes Its Own Programs by David Whitten http://texai.org/blog/roadmap/how-texai-writes-its-own-programs/#comment-5018 David Whitten Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:37:46 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/roadmap/how-texai-writes-its-own-programs/#comment-5018 I'm wondering if you need to tease out just a little more detail. Right now, I view your java objects as a "capability" more than an "action". I expect that you are right now, simply combining the idea of being able to do something with the action of doing something. In some systems, I've seen this teased apart into a definition, a capability, and the application of that capability to some specific inputs. Related to this view, I'm happy to see you are talking about input-roles and output-roles, rather than simply inputs and outputs. So the application of an expression that invokes these capabilities is still not a part of this page. In some ways, your capabilites definition here can be seen as setting up the qualifications of a bus-driver to drive a bus, but not actually dealing with the occurrence of a particular bus-driving event. What kinds of distinctions are necessary to deal with the java object when it is actually used? I’m wondering if you need to tease out just a little more detail.

Right now, I view your java objects as a “capability” more than an “action”. I expect that you are right now, simply combining the idea of being able to do something with the action of doing something. In some systems, I’ve seen this teased apart into a definition, a capability, and the application of that capability to some specific inputs. Related to this view, I’m happy to see you are talking about input-roles and output-roles, rather than simply inputs and outputs. So the application of an expression that invokes these capabilities is still not a part of this page.

In some ways, your capabilites definition here can be seen as setting up the qualifications of a bus-driver to drive a bus, but not actually dealing with the occurrence of a particular bus-driving event. What kinds of distinctions are necessary to deal with the java object when it is actually used?

]]> Comment on Bootstrap Dialog System Status 2008-04-25 by AlexBt http://texai.org/blog/2008/04/25/bootstrap-dialog-system-status-2008-04-25/#comment-4068 AlexBt Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:59:47 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/2008/04/25/bootstrap-dialog-system-status-2008-04-25/#comment-4068 Hi Steve, First of all let me say that you are doing great work. I've downloaded the Texai lexicon and uploaded it into my Sesame 2 repository. Via RDFEntityManager I managed to pull information from it very easily. It's truly great stuff!!! But I have a question regarding lexicon creation. What I need to do is to create a Russian language lexicon similar to what you've done. Can you describe the lexicon creation procedure that you utilized while transforming your MySQL WordNet database into the lexicon? How did you map WordNet word senses to the OpenCyc portion of the Texai ontology? Regards, Alex Hi Steve,

First of all let me say that you are doing great work. I’ve downloaded the Texai lexicon and uploaded it into my Sesame 2 repository. Via RDFEntityManager I managed to pull information from it very easily. It’s truly great stuff!!!
But I have a question regarding lexicon creation.
What I need to do is to create a Russian language lexicon similar to what you’ve done. Can you describe the lexicon creation procedure that you utilized while transforming your MySQL WordNet database into the lexicon? How did you map WordNet word senses to the OpenCyc portion of the Texai ontology?

Regards,
Alex

]]> Comment on Cheap Cluster by Jim N http://texai.org/blog/2007/09/21/cheap-cluster/#comment-3998 Jim N Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:26:47 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/2007/09/21/cheap-cluster/#comment-3998 I undertook a similar compute node construction with a 2-way split duty of DMZ server to KB tools and supplier of boob-tube pixels. having hassled with diskless nodes in the past, i went with booting from my former vista readyboost thumbdrive. the specs are on par with what you write here but somewhat upscale copper and RAM really pile on the costs. http://gentootweeker.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-hotness-my-silent-living-room.html cheers Jim I undertook a similar compute node construction with a 2-way split duty of DMZ server to KB tools and supplier of boob-tube pixels. having hassled with diskless nodes in the past, i went with booting from my former vista readyboost thumbdrive. the specs are on par with what you write here but somewhat upscale copper and RAM really pile on the costs.

http://gentootweeker.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-hotness-my-silent-living-room.html

cheers
Jim

]]> Comment on Java Class Dynamic Compilation and Reloading by Dave Whitten http://texai.org/blog/2008/06/01/java-class-dynamic-compilation-and-reloading/#comment-3575 Dave Whitten Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:50:31 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/2008/06/01/java-class-dynamic-compilation-and-reloading/#comment-3575 Hey Steve, I looked this over, and wonder if your initial set of code that writes the stringBuilder to a file is able to "clean up" properly if FileWriter needs to do something in the finally clause. The scenario I'm imagining is that FileWriter is successful but BufferedWriter is not. you have a call to bufferedWriter.close(); in the finally clause, but nothing for FileWriter. Otherwise, Interesting bit of code. I like the way you think. GRIN Dave 713-870-3834 Hey Steve,

I looked this over, and wonder if your initial set of code that writes the stringBuilder to a file is able to “clean up” properly if FileWriter needs to do something in the finally clause. The scenario I’m imagining is that FileWriter is successful but BufferedWriter is not. you have a call to bufferedWriter.close(); in the finally clause, but nothing for FileWriter.

Otherwise,
Interesting bit of code. I like the way you think.
GRIN

Dave
713-870-3834

]]> Comment on Texai Project by Sandeep http://texai.org/blog/about/texai-project/#comment-2493 Sandeep Sat, 17 May 2008 08:43:26 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/about/texai-project/#comment-2493 I found this project very interesting. I got to know about it on SourceForge. I am very much interested in AI. I will be reading about this project. Keep up the good work. Best of Luck! I found this project very interesting. I got to know about it on
SourceForge. I am very much interested in AI. I will be reading about this project. Keep up the good work. Best of Luck!

]]> Comment on Bootstrap Dialog System Status 2008-04-25 by Steve Reed http://texai.org/blog/2008/04/25/bootstrap-dialog-system-status-2008-04-25/#comment-2178 Steve Reed Thu, 01 May 2008 15:04:42 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/2008/04/25/bootstrap-dialog-system-status-2008-04-25/#comment-2178 Hi Jim, currently the features that characterize alternative generation phrases are all weighted the same - 1.0. I expect that reinforcement learning, given a reward signal from the user, will converge on producing the results that you describe. It may turn out that the trial parse feature is not useful, in which case it's learned weight will be near zero. -Steve Hi Jim, currently the features that characterize alternative generation phrases are all weighted the same - 1.0. I expect that reinforcement learning, given a reward signal from the user, will converge on producing the results that you describe. It may turn out that the trial parse feature is not useful, in which case it’s learned weight will be near zero.
-Steve

]]> Comment on Bootstrap Dialog System Status 2008-04-25 by Jim Smart http://texai.org/blog/2008/04/25/bootstrap-dialog-system-status-2008-04-25/#comment-2116 Jim Smart Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:44:23 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/2008/04/25/bootstrap-dialog-system-status-2008-04-25/#comment-2116 apols. - i missed favouring 'reuse previously uttered words' from my monster question when discussing which other factors would come into play to result in the (expected? - well, for me at least) favouring of the word 'book' over tome or volume. /J apols. - i missed favouring ‘reuse previously uttered words’ from my monster question when discussing which other factors would come into play to result in the (expected? - well, for me at least) favouring of the word ‘book’ over tome or volume.

/J

]]> Comment on Bootstrap Dialog System Status 2008-04-25 by Jim Smart http://texai.org/blog/2008/04/25/bootstrap-dialog-system-status-2008-04-25/#comment-2115 Jim Smart Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:35:20 +0000 http://texai.org/blog/2008/04/25/bootstrap-dialog-system-status-2008-04-25/#comment-2115 i think that perhaps the rule for favouring an utterance with 'the least effort when performing a trial parse of the (partial) utterance', as currently defined, is throwing an odd bias into the mix. when a human constructs a sentence it is usually the case that the most common word for an object is often preferred in speech. the visible side-effect of the rule as currently implemented is that the system favours the usage of unique words over common words - which without further weighting will produce sentences with a flowery vocabulary that may appear somewhat quirky. for me it is somewhat easier to read 'the book on the table' than 'the tome on the table', the first example scans more easily. of course i fully understand what each phrase means if i read it. and when speaking i would certainly call a book a book - even if there was a book of matches on the table also. do you think you will have to change the rule from (easier for texai to parse) to (easier for a human to parse)? or will other factors come into play to take care of this, such as having improved weighting in the rule 'use words that the recipient is otherwise likely to know', or perhaps by having a better understanding/model of the current context (i.e. knowing there are no other kinds of books in our reference)? i am interested in your thoughts on this. i think this whole project is truly fascinating! best wishes, /Jim i think that perhaps the rule for favouring an utterance with ‘the least effort when performing a trial parse of the (partial) utterance’, as currently defined, is throwing an odd bias into the mix.

when a human constructs a sentence it is usually the case that the most common word for an object is often preferred in speech.

the visible side-effect of the rule as currently implemented is that the system favours the usage of unique words over common words - which without further weighting will produce sentences with a flowery vocabulary that may appear somewhat quirky.

for me it is somewhat easier to read ‘the book on the table’ than ‘the tome on the table’, the first example scans more easily. of course i fully understand what each phrase means if i read it. and when speaking i would certainly call a book a book - even if there was a book of matches on the table also.

do you think you will have to change the rule from (easier for texai to parse) to (easier for a human to parse)? or will other factors come into play to take care of this, such as having improved weighting in the rule ‘use words that the recipient is otherwise likely to know’, or perhaps by having a better understanding/model of the current context (i.e. knowing there are no other kinds of books in our reference)?

i am interested in your thoughts on this.

i think this whole project is truly fascinating!

best wishes,
/Jim

]]>