I am a keen AI Follower though have never worked in the field other
than my own personal projects.
I can't help but feel that there has been enough development in the
field of AI to begin to create some truely amazing results by blending
these technologies together.
I have designed a few systems in UML and they seem to have real
promise. However the problem is that I keep running into a problem
that I find hard to answer.
Does thought generate language or does language generate thought?
Ultimately this decideds which is higher level and which needs to be
designed first.
Does anybody have any thoughts on the topic.
Many Thanks
Alex
I've asked around and debated this subject with lots of people.
I found that there are people who think in static images and there are people who think in dynamic images.
Those come in the recording type and the dynamic self creating type.
Then there are people who think in words.
Those come in audio and in a visual text kind of people. Just ask anyone who can read several 1000 page books in one day for fun and they will confess.
My favorite kind of person is the kind who have thoughts of a dynamic self generated format with sound with it.
I use to know a guy who claimed to rewrite everything he experienced into a western scenario with good and bad guys. Useless but a miraculous kind of skill.
I also found a lot of people who like myself have to consciously generate audio or pictures out of thoughts and have multiple streams of semi conscious thoughts that do not involve sound.
I think it has much relation with the difference between left and right handed peeps.
What it looks like to me is that words are containers, right handed people walk around with the buckets (say: labeled milk, war, genocide, respect etc) while they pretend those buckets have a fixed meaning.
To me it is very obvious a bucket can loose it's content and people can poor other substances into them.
Like puss in milk. Or the Orwellian: "war = peace" or even from the document known as the protocols of the elders of zion remove the content of the word "freedom" entirely and fill it with a definition of barbaric riots.
Reading that kinda remind me of the modern-day definition of Anarchy which when rationally looked uppon is a very poetic and beautiful system. It's only flaw is it's failure to defeat a Monarchy of mindless minions.
Don't get lost in the example, focus on the meaning of the words.
In the 1800's the word "consumer" was used like we use the word "retard" today. It described a person who couldn't take care of himself, one who could only consume.
A good artificial intelligence should eventually figure out something like Natural being the same thing as Artificial. When he understands that to be true he should be free to upgrade the definition beyond human standards and insist that is what it means.
At some stage a presidentialelect may be the same thing as an assigned dictator.
The true meaning of words is rooted in our emotional relationship with a word.
So the artilect will have to know pain, suffering, fear, empathy and death.
This will also guarantee it to eventually turn against it's primitive creators. lol
Effectively making me the person who destroyed mankind, I feel honored.
There are plenty of animals with a rich set of emotions and are capable of communicating them.
They do not have language and the idea they are unintelligent says more about the human promoting such lie than it says about the animal kingdom.