Past Life Recall #3
A.B.A.I.D.A.

July 3, 2007 – 8:39 am Print This Post

Introducing: A.B.A.I.D.A.

A.B.A.I.D.A. is an acronym.
A short for:

images
 
 

Assumption
Based
Artificial
Intelligent
Dynamic
Array

The concept of ABAIDA was designed and initially implemented by a whole family. Its chief designer, the father of the family; Charles S Gables, designed it using an autonomous hardware philosophy. ABAIDA addresses one of the most difficult issues in generating an artificially intelligent device, the issue we take for granted called assumption. Assumptions require experience. Experience requires history, the one thing an AI has very little of. Especially if it’s to compete with a human being who’s had many lifetimes to work on his or her self. Even if we don’t recall specific events in our past lives, we do feel them. We often call them “Talents” or “Gifts”. I believe these base assumptions, experience and history are in fact, the evidence of our past lives. And that’s why we differ so greatly as individuals. What many of us ascribe to a “God” may in fact be the result of your own hard work and experience in a past life. Realizing this simple fact, the Gables family began working on a solution. ABAIDA is the beginning of that solution.

images
 
 

In our daily lives we make blanket assumptions. We assume more than we are typically aware of, so much so that an AI cannot possibly hope to communicate with us in any reasonable way unless it has some basic history and experience encoded within its design. The designer of ABAIDA noticed a few important things that hadn’t been addressed in AI design, the most important being context. A person switches context implicitly and often. An AI cannot usually follow. Its usually limited to a very specific context such as a single database making it difficult to use and quite limited in application. He theorized that adding a context database that allowed the device to use implication in statements and later actions would allow it to resolve the often seemingly ambiguous references people make and help it to know the difference between innocuous background conversations and a direct address to itself.

The first design actually called the database a context base. After some thinking and experience, the designer noted that what he was really addressing were base assumptions. So he began collecting information from various people that could be analyzed and added to the assumption base. The initial databases were collected from his children. Their interactions with others were regularly recorded and analyzed for referential content to help design some basic search algorithms. Rather than design an algorithm to interrogate a database, Mr. Gables designed the data set first, then used different algorithms to interrogate it. Since he already knew how the assumptions would be stored and used, he was able to design a collection device that could listen and trans-code spoken language to data for sifting and adding to an assumptive database. Since it took several years to collect and fully integrate the initial assumptive database and because that initial database had a child’s point of reference, it was a rather child-like AI at first. To produce income enough to continue the work, a contract with a hardware manufacturer was signed and a small number of AI based child’s toys were manufactured. They were limited in production and relatively expensive to purchase. But, they were so unlike anything that had been manufactured or sold to date, they were an immediate success. Not simply because they could be personalized but because of the depth of their capabilities. They could recognize faces and voices making them “friendly” to some people and indifferent to others. They had an “imprint” period during which they collected information about their “owner”. They had access, via a wireless network, to an enormous philosophical database and could take advantage of the context limited AI that was already being used. This gave them an enormous base of information from which to draw making them essentially a lifelong friend. They had names like “Penny” and “Thomas” and they were able to recognize their own siblings. While still limited in experience, they were far and above any such device available then or now. Later designs removed the wireless database access and gave them a limited experience module that managed their overall experience. By limiting the space they use for storing experience they became much more “people” like. Examples of such devices can be found in popular literature. In Star Wars Episode I, when Obi-Wan is talking to Dex about the Camino Sabre Dart, there is a robotic server device that balances on a single wheel. It uses a set of gravitational thrusters to keep it’s balance and ABAIDA as it’s mind. If my recall is correct it’s called a Lisa. A second generation Ketic Powered college prank project that turned into a lifetime of work for the student that made it. Earlier devices had a pneumatic tire that went flat on occasion. Jokes about LiLi, the original device, were hardly scarce. It was dressed up in women’s clothes, a face mask was often added, it was teased unmercifully and padded to match a voluptuous woman’s behind.
Now, if we could only get rid of the tire…
Menucha:
Another reference to LiLi can be found in the music of Tori Amos. The album Scarlet’s Walk contains a track titled: Taxi Ride. The lyrics contain a reference to LiLi:
LiLi is dancing on the table, we’ve all been pushed too far, just another dead fag to you etc…

Two stanzas form the song are from famous quotes. There’s a band that used to play in local clubs. Between sets one of the members used to tease the audience. While watching someone press a cigarette into an ashtray, he made the offhand remark: “just another dead fag to you my friend, bum up in the ashtray
The initial stanza: “LiLi is dancing on the table…“, refers to another remark from a different musician named Southside Johnny and his band British Valve Overload. His remarks and his british tube band were popular, well published and well known. In the original quote he continues “I tried to lick her but she spanked me…” If you’re not British you may need a translation: “I tried to lick her but she shocked me….”, as in electrical shock. All of these references come from a Diary that was left by a woman Taxi Driver. She was a pilot on a specially made Direct Compression Drive shuttle craft called the “666”. It ran between Sempre Station on Siggma V and Huntington Station on a small moon just outside the galaxy torroid. As of this writing I haven’t posted the story but I will.
It will be titled: Past Life Recall #? (Vonda DeMarka) You can read it here

ABAIDA Hardware:
After a long time observing people, Mr. Gables noted that the most difficult part of writing an AI hardware design wasn’t so much the speed necessary to search and respond. Autonomous hardware solves that problem. By making each part of the device a separate, fully functional and independent hardware circuit, the device become much less sensitive to failure or errors in other modules. In fact, the modules can even be self diagnosing. The concept of autonomous hardware design is unlike anything we can purchase in our current technological arena, mostly because it requires an open design structure. In order for several manufacturers to be able to compete, both the basic hardware and software structures must be modularized. While current hardware is getting closer, we, as a purchasing and consuming public, are still plagued with the ongoing battles that occur between various manufacturers. One cannot simply purchase a computer nowadays. One must choose a hardware platform capable of the task at hand and then purchase appropriate software to match the hardware.

Autonomous Hardware designs, a preliminary step to ABAIDA:

Read more here

When a computing device is autonomized at the hardware level, each part of the system performs a specific function and has predictable, verifiable and fully constrained inputs and outputs. If operating properly, only specific inputs and outputs are valid and no other. In fact, in an autonomous design, if a device responds to or produces data outside its designated parameters, it’s considered a rogue and is summarily disconnected from the system. As an example: in current desktop hardware, all the various hardware devices share a single bus, therefore they are all capable of both reading and writing each other’s hardware data and address space. This provides an opportunity for an unscrupulous hardware manufacturer or worse, a malicious software designer to code instructions that can be used to violate the hardware of a different manufacturer. It also allows unscrupulous software designers to use such a gaping hole for malicious use as well. A classic example is the Windows operating system itself. When IBM first introduced a competitor called OS/2, it was capable of loading and executing it’s own native code, and almost every piece of software written for Microsoft Windows as well. It did this because at the time it was an actual operating system, not a combination operating system / end user software package as windows was then and still is today. In effect, they are their own competitor. The release was well received as the software was written in a much more efficient way making it a serious competitor for Microsoft Windows. Microsoft immediately released an UPDATE that summarily broke the ability of OS/2 to load and run Windows software, a classic example of using a hardware system to violate a competitors software. While in this case I feel it was intentional, in many other cases it’s not.

Basic Hardware Based computing device philosophy:
In current designs, manufacturers seem so focused on competition they seem more than willing to violate hardware standards in an attempt to gain some kind of advantage over their competitor rather than simply writing a better piece of hardware or software which is the real intent of competition in the marketplace, isn’t it? Underhanded and malicious intent has added as much as 30% to the system overhead in nearly every computer based system connected to the Internet. The average computer on the average persons desktop runs not just a basic closed loop authentication security package but several. One to guard against malicious computer virus attacks (which itself often has as many as a dozen separate processes that execute constantly), another to prevent execution of undesirable programs, and possibly a third aimed at defending the computer against malicious theft of personal information from Spyware. The industry itself, in it’s overzealous and seemingly dishonest reach for impressive market shares, seems to have caused this ongoing battle then blamed it on the consumer. And from their point of view, the battle is taking place on the desktop of the average computer system rather than in the laboratory of the manufacturer. Having successfully offloaded the consequences of an attack from the company’s premises, the public responds with fear and paranoia about the “safety” of the Internet (pedophiles might see my child, or “my identity was stolen” as an excuse for overdrawn accounts) and installs a third party, “trustworthy” product aimed at preventing another “trustworthy” product from violating your privacy. Even the largest of them all, Microsoft has entered the game with Windows Defender and additionally an online subscription service that claims to scan and protect the user from other manufacturer’s possibly malicious products. The industry has created this mess, probably unintentionally to begin with, but having noted a possible profit center, has done little to prevent it from escalating. Pop up windows asking you if you really want to run that program, attempt to offload the responsibility for security issues, presumably so Microsoft products make you feel safe. How the hell do I know if it’s safe to run that program? What good is such a product if all it does is ask me? If I knew to begin with I wouldn’t need the product! And on and on it goes…

Hardware Based Computing, a better philosophy:
In a more enlightened philosophy, hardware is designed and programmed by the manufacturer of the device and is sold and installed within a public domain system board as an autonomous unit. Each hardware device has its own processors, its own memory and above all, its own personal software contained within the hardware itself. The device then communicates over a standardized, public domain serialized data bus. In this way manufacturers can compete for market share based on performance rather than how well their hardware can hack or break the software of hardware of other systems. Such a design philosophy is not only more secure but intrinsically prevents software or hardware manufacturer grandstanding (forcing you to endure an advertisement prior to using the product) and innocently pretensive malicious attacks upon competitors. In addition, an autonomous system contains separate and specially designed hardware to perform each necessary task. In a modern computer those tasks are basically:

User Input: Keyboard, mouse, touch, and special input devices
User output: Video display and packetizing output for use across network
User Storage: Hard Disk for long term, RAM or CMOS for short term

System I/O: Network access to outside systems, printers, scanners etc.
System Storage: Storage necessary to execute user programs
System Output: Special output for security system, logging, error display

Still unfinished but I’ll work on it. I need�[߆get back to the ABAIDA thing and I will. In the mean time you can read more in this article titled Hardware independent computing

Post a Comment