>Hi, I've just been reading the MIST paper, and I suspect that it may be

the probabilty distribution is NOT distinctive, which is the whole point! it

>fundamentally flawed... <snip>

>Let's assume that you can somehow obtain a distinctive probability

>distribution from intelligent responses, from the stream of bits, - what is

>to stop you artificially making a bit generator that has the the same

>probability distribution? <snip>

is .5/.5... and it is very easy to make an artificial system that generates

this probabibility distribution: it's called a coin!

for the record:

A Minimum Intelligent Signal Test is simply the maximum abstraction of the

turing test. it is able to statistically classify an unknown system as

either human, random or evasive and it works as follows:

1: collect and validate a pool (corpus) of binary items (i call them

mindpixels now) that require human intelligence/experience/consciousness to

respond to and that have a stable response. ("water is wet" has a stable

human response of true - "i am male" does not have a stable response - 1/2

say true and 1/2 say false) you will note, this is the whole point of the

mindpixel project - to build the largest corpus of MIST items possible.

2: from your pool, draw a test of at least 20 random items (central limit

theorm) such that 50% have a human response of true, and 50% have a human

response of false.

3: present these items to the unknown system in random order (note that the

probability distribution is .5/.5 - 1/2 true and 1/2 false)

4: calculate the probablity that the system is human, random or evasive.

here's a few examples with test of twenty items

- you can calculate these probabilities yourself here:

http://vassun.vassar.edu/~lowry/zbinom.html

case 1:

-------

n=20 (number of items in test)

k=10 (number of times systems response matched human response)

p=.5 (probability that a random item from the test is true)

q=.5 (probability that a random item from the test is false)

two-tailed p=1.0 the probability that the system is random is 1.0 or 100% -

this is the result you would expect if you flipped a coin to each item.

case 2:

-------

everything is the same except, k=11

p=.83 there is an 83% chance that the system is random - pretty good bet it

is not human!

case 3:

------

k=14

p=.12 there is now just a 12% chance this is a random system.

case 4:

------

k=15

p=.04 woa! big difference! in fact a scientific difference. the probability

that this is a random system (coin) is now less than .05. this is the normal

scientific publication standard. if you had an artificial system that got

15/20 items correct every time you presented it with 20 items randomally

selected from a very lagre pool, you could say scientifically that is is

statistically human.

case 5:

-------

k=20

p= <.0002 actually the probability that you have a random system respond to

all 20 items correctly is 1 in 1,048,576 the exact same probability that you

flip a fair coin heads (or tails) 20 times in a row. the answer is exactly

the same for k=0 - simply because it takes a human to answer every item

incorrectly too (to be evasive) - a coin isn't smart enough to be completely

dumb!

try this:

n=200,000 (this is the number of validated mindpixels i have right now)

k=100,450

p=.04!

100,450 is the minimum score out of 200,000 that science will allow you to

say is statitically siginificant - 450 correct items above brackgroud is the

minimum intelligent signal for a 200,000 item test.

hope this clears up what a MIST is and how it works.

chris.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com- At 08:52 PM 2000-11-23 -0400, you wrote:

> >How is this system any more intelligent than a natural language

Of course you know that statement is simply opinion. I would argue that

> >interface to an encyclopedia? And we can already do that!

> >

>

>all i am is a natural language interface to the enyclopedia of me...

there is much more that makes up the "mind" that cannot be qualified in

terms of mindpixels as they are currently defined. For example, emotion,

instinct, and dreams are all part of what makes our mind what it is, yet

none of these things can truly be expressed in language. There is always

that element of emotion that is "more than words could ever say", there's

the reaction beyond explanation (instinct).

>my

... and other things. If this world ran on common sense, it would be a

>intelligence come from the fact that my encyclopedia is capable of answering

>questions to which it has no direct answer. it has instead, an active model

>of self and environment that allows it to generalize based on massive

>amounts of common sense.

much better place than it is.

>it's not just the raw facts, but how they are interconnected that makes us

No, it's the facts and experiences and how they connect that makes up our

>what we are.

total experience and our knowledge base. It's the other factors that make

us what we are.

>now, i've said this before, only about a million times, but i'll say it

I don't agree. The result of the statistical regression (I think I can use

>again. the process of training a statistical learning system with mindpixels

>is hypertomography. it is the high dimensional analog of normal tomography

>that gives us CT and MRI images. the math is EXACTLY the same - just in more

>dimensions. in the same way that a collection of MRI images of you brain

>correspond to your physical brain, a high-d image of your mind made using

>hypertomography will correspond to your mind.

"regression" here... haven't done stats for some time) will correspond to

the part of my mind that is rationally presented through a language

interface. There will be essential parts of me missing from that mapping.

In other words, MIST very accurately tests whether or not a system has a

knowledge level similar to that of a (?many) human(s). But there is

something the Turing Test does that MIST does not: MIST has no method of

testing whether the system can carry a train of thought, respond in an

appropriate manner when confronted with an opinion that differs from its

own (whether that be an emotional outburst or a rational argument), or

develop a complex solution to a problem; all of which I believe to be part

of an intelligence test.

In fact, I would be more likely to accept a being as intelligent if it was

able to demonstrate the three things I've listed above without any sort of

knowledge than the other way around.

A knowledge base without a driving force is simply a knowledge base... and

as Andrew said, we can already make knowledge bases with NL interfaces.

Eric