User talk:CharlesGillingham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having been contacted by the webmaster of countingcrows.com, I can confirm that this user is Charlie Gillingham.
—freak(talk) 12:12, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:History of AI

I noticed this user page. It looks quite extensive; are you planning to make this public? --moxon 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- when I have time to finish it. I have five or ten paragraphs to write and when the rough draft is finished (and referenced) I'm going to announce it on the talk page of History of AI. Then if there are no intense objections, I'll put it up.CharlesGillingham 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks very promising. I suspect the current history page could be moved to "Timeline" or something without any objections. If you don't mind me asking, have you ever pursued research in AI and composition? --moxon 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my plan: to move the table in the current article to a new "Timeline of artificial intelligence" article.

I worked for Aion Corporation (an expert systems shell) back in 1989-92. I was a software developer and manager. Before that, I studied philosophy, cognitive science and computer science at U.C. Berkeley. AI was my career and "day job" before the band took off.CharlesGillingham 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your work on AI

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For labour on the History of AI and AI Winter, thanks for making them look more like science! --Jaibe 09:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help with Musical Notation, Charles. Somehow my browser must have been causing problems... Matthias Röder 09:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions Referring to your edits

Quick question what is the tempo of the wikipedia song in picture file on the musical notation page--Antiedman 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a cadence, so it should ritard a bit. I suppose it's around 130 bpm at the start, and the last three eighth notes are probably around 100. CharlesGillingham 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any progress ...

... on those Music Notability guidelines? I see you're fighting the good fight; I've been trying to for a while now, but it's tough. The topic seems to have been dropped, which I think is how they mostly deal with us inclusionists. TribeCalledQuest 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we are waiting for a consensus, which (as I understand it) would mean that we're waiting for one of them to back down. Fat chance, I suppose, but they may back down if more editors were to post their support of the new guildelines. Is it ethical to ask editors individually to weigh in? That seems a little conspiratorial to me.

As for myself, I think I have made my position pretty clear with a concrete proposal. I'm not sure there's much more I can do except bicker with them, and that certainly won't create consensus.

If the proposal gets buried too deeply on the talk page, I may repost it under a new topic to keep it alive. ---- CharlesGillingham 19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about asking other editors to weigh in. That points to what I feel is the problem with the process as a whole: I don't know how you move a discussion from the bickering stage to a formal voting process, or whatever the Wiki-way is. The arguments all seem to devolve into editors shouting back and forth, with no real progress.

Oh well. TribeCalledQuest 14:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Algorithms

Regarding removing the category "artificial intelligence" from Genetic Algorithms: I note that the category "intelligence" remains. Isn't "artificial intelligence" a more fitting category than just "intelligence"? I generally refer to GA as "nonlinear (or combinatorial) optimization and AI"; I think much of the research aims towards AI, but much of the current application is more optimization, particularly in control engineering. Both terms apply. Pete St.John 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The most fitting category for genetic algorithm is "category:genetic algorithms", which is a sub-category of "category:artificial intelligence" (by way of "category:evolutionary algorithms")

I agree that the article doesn't belong under "category:intelligence" at all, because "category:artificial intelligence" is a sub-category of "category:intelligence", and it's another case of WP:SUBCAT.

I didn't fix this (or notice it) because I was only fixing "category:artificial intelligence" ---- CharlesGillingham 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Image:P11 kasparov breakout.jpg was marked for deletion because it needed a fair use rationale for its use on Wikipedia; I added the notice to all of the captions where it was being used so editors knew that it may have been deleted. A log including all of your uploads can be found here. 17Drew 06:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

No problem. Its all because of a script I made, NewPagePatroller. An updating list of new pages! the power is mine! --TheJosh 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on Philosophy of artificial intelligence

I like what I see. Keep at it, I wish I could contribute more, but just don't know much about it. Here's a funny AI story: when I was a grad student in the mid-70's I had a chum who spent his evenings toiling away in the Stanford AI Laboratory. One evening, after supper with him and his wife, he brought there to meet "Perry (Parry?) the Paranoid" (I suspect Terrry Winograd doing this work, can't remember...). Anyway, I would try to have a dialog with Perry (at a teletype, or a CRT, again can't remember). Every time, after about 10 sentences of something like the following (from long memory) Me: "Hello." Perry: "Hello". "How are you tonight?" Perry: "Why do you ask?" Me: "I'm just being polite." Perry: "I don't like it when people are "just polite" ... after a few more exchanges like this Perry would get anxious and "hang up" on me.

Somewhere, in print, (New York Review of Books I bet) I've seen a dialog between Perry and an AI "shrink". That's even more hilarious. Shrink: "Why are you asking "Why do you ask?". Even a tad of said dialog would be fun in the article. BillWvbailey 16:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Still very much a work in progress. Hope to have it in good shape by the end of the week.

I like the story about PARRY. Have you heard about the time that a sales vice president from BBN came by to talk to Daniel Bobrow and had very frustrating conversation with ELIZA about using the computer? True story.

I might add some of these to the articles about ELIZA or chatterbots, some day. ---- CharlesGillingham 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References on artificial intelligence

Charles, thanks for leaving a message regarding my edits on the articles about artificial intelligence and philosophy of artificial intelligence. I do prefer the {{cite xxx}} templates as they do provide COinS support, thus they enable to reuse the references by applications like Zotero. Anyway, it looks like there is (or was?) some discussion on COinS support on the discussion page for the citation template as well, but it's actually not working with my Zotero installation. I will keep an eye on that... please accept my appologizes if my modificatations do not conform to the overall article layout.

Thanks --Ioverka 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your draft page

I moved CharesGillingham/Drafts/Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence to User:CharlesGillingham/Drafts/Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence, since this should be in user space. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto User:CharlesGillingham/Drafts/Applications of AI technology. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment

Hi there.
I would like to know more people interested in those subjects.
Please take a look at Raffe opinions
Raffethefirst (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (no topic)

Hello, CharlesGillingham. You have new messages at Suruena's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] Responded to your 1-month old question about Combinatorial game theory

Sorry, I've been away for a while. I responded to your question at the bottom of Talk:Combinatorial game theory. My answer was rather equivocal, unfortunately, but basically I suggested including a brief section on AI techniques in the article, but not too much. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was away even longer, and didn't see your question until a few days ago. I'd say David Eppstein's take on the problem is better than anything I could come up with. The fusion of AI and CGT—if it can be accomplished—is awaiting someone's OR.–Dan Hoey^talk 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning your AI edits of febuary 22

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193047392 - Wow huge edit, I had two remarks. I think most of what was there about Samuel Butler is probably better in the History of AI section. But I think that one of the significant things he might have been saying was that Darwinism is a natural process for all intelligent species. And that the scope of Darwinism can also apply to mechanical consciousness, which is why I think the the line "Butler envisioned mechanical consciousness emerging by means of Darwinian Evolution, specifically by Natural selection, as a form of natural, not artificial, intelligence." Should go back in.

Fine.

Other than that, I think Isacc Asimov's I, Robot should be mentioned, in the AI in myth and fiction section. As I feel it's currently one of the main fictional models that average joe citizen can identify and be familiar with, due in most part, to the books popularity and the I, Robot (film) with Will Smith.

By all means, put I, Robot in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193187991 - I'm taking out the word can, as nobody can predict the future. And really the word estimate is a verb and works just fine.

Much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193205908 - Some link to Commonsense knowledge needs to remain or be re-added due the the level, amount, and scope of data collected from MIT's Open Mind Common Sense project. See Open Mind CommonSense. Why did you remove my addition of of Language with respects to Evolutionary robotics? I think I may have put it under the wrong section, but the research is significant. It's a new approach that many researchers have talked about with regards to language and thought development. It's been suggested that computers will not even be able to achieve AI without developing their own language, and only a few researchers are working on the problem.

I think this material should go in the evolutionary robotics article or the natural language processing article. This section should describe only approaches that affected a large number of researchers.

I hated taking this out, because it was well written, well referenced, and interesting. It was just a little off-topic. (Similar to the Samuel Butler material.) I think your contributions are always well written, well referenced and interesting.

But, and this is a very important point, the article has to mention only the most significant, influential ideas in the field of AI. Just the most important ideas. That's all there's room for. If we mention a name or idea, it should ideally be something that's in almost every textbook on the subject, almost every popular survey of the field. (You'll notice that my footnotes generally reference the four most popular textbooks, the two most popular histories of AI (McCorduck, Crevier) and the most popular futurist (Kurzweil)). Before rewriting this article, I first researched exactly which subjects an article on AI had to cover (see Talk:Artificial intelligence/Textbook survey). I've tried to make sure that all the major topics covered in AI textbooks, histories and surveys are mentioned. This is a survey article, and there's very little latitude as far as what should and shouldn't be included. The article has to accurately define the entire field of AI.

Of course, I've broken this rule in a few places, but most of that is systematic. (For example, I've emphasized the unsolved problems, which are not covered very well in textbooks, or in histories of AI. Even so, I stuck to well known unsolved problems.). Sometimes there are gaps that I've had to fill in. And every editor is naturally a little biased towards their own interests. But, in writing this article, I have really struggled to avoid writing about what I thought was interesting, and stick to the topics that define the subject. (Which is one reason why a few of these sections bore me, despite the fact that I wrote them.)

I was also thinking that there's probably enough information on AI research that it probably deserves it's own page. Plus the article is really long, perhaps even too long to be considered for FA status which at this point I think the article deserves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193220693 - here I notice that you mention that the technical details are pretty boring. I was thinking since AI is such a board topic, it might be good to set a target audience age. That way there could be a way to set a standard for technical details, and how they could be sorted and assessed for placement on the page. For instance if the subject is too complex in detail, the article would give a basic lay audience intro. and then direct user to see a sub-page for more details.
(On a side note, Colorblind is my fav. Counting Crows song)--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The target audience is the general, educated reader: not someone who is already familiar with computer science. It should also be useful to computer scientists coming from other fields. The technical subjects have to be mentioned (i.e., each of the tools has to be mentioned) to properly define the field. I'm in the process of removing the names of specific sub-sub-problems or algorithms for which can't be properly explained in the room available ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I have to say, for an educated reader, familiar with the way wikipedia works, the article is fine. But for a general reader, who is looking for a brief summary, even the most complete sections can leave a reader with more questions than answers. For instance, many of the summarizing descriptions completely rely on the readers patience and availability to search the connecting wikilinks.

Examples where I think the average reader might have to follow wikilinks to understand what was being said:

"In the middle of the 20th century, a handful of scientists began a new approach to building intelligent machines, based on recent discoveries in neurology" (History of AI research). The word neurology, is probably understood by someone with a GED, but not a 12 year old. suggested fix neurology|brain, so it reads "recent discoveries about the brain".
"By the middle 60s their research was heavily funded by DARPA." (History of AI research) not a huge issue. But it could read DARPA|U.S. Department of Research "By the middle 60s their research was heavily funded by the U.S. Department of Defense."
"... no silver bullet..." (Traditional symbolic AI#"Scruffy" symbolic AI) relies on user knowing what the slang "sivler bullet" means. Suggested fix silver bullet|easy answer.
""Naive" search algorithms"(Tools of AI#Search) What is a Naive search algorithms? Suggested fix rewrite sentence
"Heuristic or "informed" search. The naive algorithms quickly..." (Tools of AI#Search) What percentage of the population knows what Heuristic means? Answer: 4% Suggested fix rewrite sentence (which leads met too say.....)

Rather than continue, I've decided to just make the changes and then you and User:Pgr94 can revert what you don't like. But again, this seems to be a common problem throughout the entire article.

I'm moving this discussion to the Talk:Artificial Intelligence page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin Among the Machines

haha, yikes dude, you committed me to read a book or two, but I take at look at some stuff I can google, right quick. I'll look at it tomorrow. Samuel Butler was eccentric enough. that there's probably a few things I can find.

Today my girlfriend diverted my attention by telling me something about the Kellogg Company. Apparently Mr. Kellogg first developed Corn flakes and Graham crackers as a remedy to abstain from chronic masturbation..... How crazy is that?!--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the new page and have added to it a quote from a review of George B. Dyson's Darwin Among the Machines: The Evolution of Global Intelligence (1998) ISBN 0-7382-0030-1; a link to Samuel Butler's letter in The Press Darwin Among the Machines — (To the Editor of the Press, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13 June, 1863.) I added See Also, some Categories, and links to other articles, too. It still needs expert attention, but I think it's looking better, if not yet good. Pawyilee (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

O! Boy, did I ever find a much better review! It's an interesting-people message and concludes:

Dyson weaves together all of this and more, skillfully but sketchily. Exclusive of the front matter, notes, and index, the book is only 228 pages. There are many parts I can't summarize without trivializing them. I don't know if the book has an identifiable thesis, but a central idea is this:

       "In the game of life and evolution there are three players
        at the table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am
        firmly on the side of nature. But nature, I suspect, is on
        the side of the machines."

This is a deep book. There is not much point to reading it unless you want to think about the issues it raises. Most of us are usually too busy to do that. If you have a little free time this summer, reading and thinking about this book might be a good way to spend it.

Now to figure out how to work it into the article! Pawyilee (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Charles

Yes, I like the new page, Darwin Among the Machines, and, yes, it is obvious why you started it. I hope you've checked out the additions I've made to it, especially with regard to Dyson and his book of the same name. I contacted reviewer Tal Cohen (tal.ayal.cohen@gmail.com), who replied:

I've made a minor copy-editing change to the Wikipedia page, but nothing more; I am afraid that, at the moment, I suffer from a severe lack of time and cannot seriously contribute to Wikipedia (I have contributed scores of hours to the project in the not-so-distant past). However, it is an honor for me that you have chosen to quote from my review. Thank you, - Tal

Pawyilee (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What English speaker hasn't heard of a silver bullet?

Any english speaker whose native language is not english and any english speaker who hasn't been exposed to werewolf mythology or engineering metaphors.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Brain" is inaccurate

"Brain" is inaccurate. The discoveries that are being alluded to are about how individual neurons work, not brains. Cut it? Revert it? Which do you think?

I'm reverting it, it would be unhealthy to introduce that level of inaccuracy in attempting to make the article easier to read. I agree with you.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] do you want to be in my list?

Hy I am making a list of interested ai people so if somebody want to go deeper into the subject to know with whom to talk.
Do you agree to be in this list?
And also please tell me how the page content can be generated at the top of the page. Thanks. Raffethefirst (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your post at WT:MoS

Your comments are welcome, Charles. The only thing that frustrates me is when people are roughly in agreement and can still manage to generate pages and pages of argumentation (which happens, oh, always :). It's a little safer to talk about specific examples, and then let people deduce the general principle as they discuss the examples (which is probably what you would suggest anyway, based on your self-reverted post!) (Standard disclaimer: feel free to respond here, or not to respond.) - Dan (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AI effect

I have restored it to User:CharlesGillingham/AI effect in your user space. If you want to develop it and move it back to mainspace, it was only deleted as a prod, so it's automatically OK. (In my personal opinion, it really needs some more work if it's going to be a worthwhile article.) If you think it's not worth developing, it can be deleted. In either case let me know, and I will do the necessary deletions. DGG (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] computational theory of mind

Thanks for your help. The page needs a lot of work. Leadwind (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speedy delete

Charles - I undid a speedy delete request on one of your subpages, because it came from an anon ip address. if that was you, my apologies. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very conscientious. In turns out it was me, but I appreciate you taking the time to watch out for me. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of CharlesGillingham/Drafts/Logic-based artificial intelligence

A tag has been placed on CharlesGillingham/Drafts/Logic-based artificial intelligence requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)