Gary, it’s not like Steve is asking for a person’s pedigree before deigning to be in their presence. Everyone uses their judgment to decide what is worth their attention. Seeing real examples of someone’s work in action is a legitimate way to determine if it is worth “listening to the message”.

That being said, he sometimes lacks tact. When I started my thread about building an NLP parser, he somehow thought it was appropriate to link to a thread about entering the CBC, as though that were immediately relevant to my project (?). However I think his broader point is an appropriate one. Lots of people like to talk about how X will do Y, and wading through all the talk is tedious. Show me Y and I’ll be interested in hearing about X.

The point is, almost like a broken record, when some one posts here some technique they use, a group responds “Where is the chat bot?” “Show me.” “I need the evidence, the proof.” “Results are what matter.”  Again and again it keeps reoccurring to the point that folks avoid explaining and exploring stuff because the “experts” find it tedious.

A small correction: Descartes, not Pascal related thinking to consciousness.

Often seeing preliminary work is just the opposite.  I don’t have to give examples, but I will say that even a contributor here signs with “only 9,999 experiments to go…”  It doesn’t mean they are on the wrong course and are not legitimate.  Else why even try?  Why waste the time?  Why share?

Alright, folks. I think we each get the point. Some of us desire to see “proof” of claims made here. Some of us don’t. Fine. Let’s now just shake hands, and agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

There’s a difference between expecting to see a fully formed product (which I agree is unreasonable) and wanting to see specific examples of specific techniques. I certainly have never demonstrated a fully-fledged parser, but I’m illustrating specific components of it with examples. (Once I’m done with my current round of edits/additions, I’ll have more to show. Exciting to be able to actually code again!)

The problem starts when someone makes the claim that something they developed will be the biggest and best thing, but nobody has fully utilized its potential/it hasn’t been implemented yet/etc. Just as it’s tiring to hear people go on about how “results are what matter”, it’s also tiring to hear big boasts with nothing behind them.

I hope you do see my point. And I hope I see yours. I agree it’s discouraging when you talk about your progress and someone dismisses it because it isn’t a finished product. I get that. But I don’t think that’s Steve’s intention.

C R Hunt - May 6, 2011:

I hope you do see my point. And I hope I see yours. I agree it’s discouraging when you talk about your progress and someone dismisses it because it isn’t a finished product. I get that. But I don’t think that’s Steve’s intention.

CR, Of course I see your point and I sympathize. As I said before I admire Steve and am grateful for what he has shared.

The view is as Dave suggests: “Put your money where your mouth is…” I totally get that. And then today I run across a news article about the “Human Mind Project” being a finalist of six in which two each will win a grant worth over a million in the first year and a billion spread out over ten years:

Steve Worswick - May 3, 2011:

After twenty years of work, my masterpiece is completed. I have mapped every neuron of the human brain ...

It makes one wonder what is the point.

I think it’s exciting that so much money is going towards AI projects (as well as projects aimed at better understanding of the human mind). It’s daunting that the field has big power houses in the mix, but I don’t consider the pursuit of AI so much like a race to the finish line.

It’s more like astronomy. There are so many niches and interesting subfields that even amateur astronomers are still at the forefront of supernova detection and comet/meteor identification. There’s a whole wide array of AI techniques to explore, and we’re fortunate that anyone with $1000 or less can finance a machine powerful enough to play a part in the field (a household computer, I mean). If AI really is a problem of engineering rather than theory (as I suspect it largely is), then having a broad range of approaches and techniques benefits development.

Then again, this is all from the perspective of someone not terribly interested in the philosophical underpinnings and implications of terms like “strong AI”.

I’ve actually seen Steve’s Strong AI creation, and trust me, “she” exists.

Thunder Walk - May 11, 2011:

I’ve actually seen Steve’s Strong AI creation, and trust me, “she” exists.

...and causes me more trouble as each day passes but I wouldn’t change her for the world!

<explicit-humor-declaration-for-the-humor-impaired>

Oh great, thanks a lot Steve. Did anyone think to check out the mysterious “Jiri”? Looks like he’s a government spook and now we’re all on the DHS watch list, or worse. Have you noticed any black vans parked outside your house lately?

</explicit-humor-declaration-for-the-humor-impaired>

Seriously though, has anyone thought through the implications of successfully developing real AI software? Who remembers the movie “Sneakers”? I’m pretty sure that even if the “good guys” got to you first, you’d still be disappeared or rendered or whatever it is they’re calling it now. Who can say it hasn’t already happened, maybe even several times?

Admittedly, Jiri said that he found us using Google Search alerts, but it could have just as easily been via Echelon.