Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!jjewett From: jjewett@math.lsa.umich.edu (Jim Jewett) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Fresh Ideas (hopefully) Message-ID: <1990Oct7.211348.26580@math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: 7 Oct 90 21:13:48 GMT References: <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct3.183522.17076@riacs.edu> <90277.034819BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu> Sender: usenet@math.lsa.umich.edu Reply-To: jjewett@math.lsa.umich.edu (Jim Jewett) Organization: University of Michigan, Department of Mathematics Lines: 96 In article <90277.034819BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu>, writes: |> ... However, hunches and judgement are beyond the capablities of |> automation (at least for the present) as they are non-rational. To me, most of a chess game between Karpov and Kasporov would seem non-rational. It isn't that their moves are bad; it is that my understanding isn't nearly sufficient. A hunch is like a move bya chess master -- it happens to be right more often than we would expect, and we don't know why, but that doesn't make it non-rational -- it just means that we lack the meta-understanding to realize this. We might not be able to follow the rules needed to produce (good, as opposed to random) hunches, but that doesn't make them non-rational. |> A further potential, possibly AIs grandest is to make computers accessable |> to all. Let me elaborate. Nothing discourages a new user more than the |> literal nature of computers. As all hackers know, computers like exact |> commands (and will accept nothing less). Mine accepts "mroe" for "more" because I told it to ... alias files are the beginning of what you are about to suggest, but I think that you go to far. |> Correct this problem and AI |> will have served its function nicely. An attempt has been made to work |> around it with the rise of the menu driven system. However, this is not |> a true solution (though it has the same effect). Here's what I would like |> in an AI system: |> |> - user affection (as opposed to user friendliness). I expect my |> PC to cuss at me if I cuss at it and compliment me if I compliment |> it. When I cuss at the computer, I really *don't* need any more aggravation. Sometimes this is because it is doing something it shouldn't (like freezing up), and these situations are, perhaps, impossible to program around. There are situations in which I *do* want it to freeze. (eg, someone trying to read my mail.) So this still has to be customizable ... and then eventually you get into programming languages, and ... |> It should know the answer I want based on context. Agreed. Though I won't go so far as to claim it is possible. I can't always figure out what my Dad means based on context. And I've had some problems with girlfriends because someone *did* figure something out based on context, and figured wrong. If humans still err so often, how can we expect more of a computer ... and deleting a week's worth of work is a pretty bad misunderstanding. |> - mistake correction. If I type Logim and it needs Logon it should |> ask me "Do you mean Logon?" and if I respond Yes (or Y or sure |> depending upon how well it knows me) after a number of repeated |> trial (2 to 5 depending upon how similar the command or error is |> to other commands) it will automatically say "I assume you meant |> Logon" and implement the command without asking me. Automatic creation of aliases is good -- if the user has the ability to veto the initial creation. If I use dleete for delete, I want it to ask me ... some commands are just bad to do easily. (As was pointed out in article <1990Oct5.184125.7044@mp.cs.niu.edu> by Neil Rickert (rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu). |> Instead of saying command not understood it would search for |> permutations of the command from the front or back. These might |> be based on context (for instance, if machine is not logged on |> it would query for logon command if expected, and if not found |> query for synonyms. |> ... MTS (Michigan Terminal System) has something a bit like this. It is *NOT* my favorite feature. Some of this is just implementation, but it can be very annoying to get asked about 4 wrong commands, and not even be able to say "Forget it, I'll try again." At least make these loops breakable. |> - VR will make language content access easier. This is because |> language interaction could occur all the time. The mistake |> correction/language acquisition feature would obviously be |> incorporated into the DOS and Root systems. This is what bothered me the most ... if it can't be turned off, it's a bug. (H????'s law, seen on cfutures recently.) And much of this (and the portions I deleted) seem to be about interface, rather than the AI itself. Much of it *could* be done with today's technology ... albeit slowly. -jJ jjewett@math.lsa.umich.edu Take only memories. Jewett@ub.cc.umich.edu Leave not even footprints.