[alicebot-general] "Alicebot" versus "AIMLbot"

Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:47:04 -0700

> Here's my model: We'll call any bot based on AIML an "AIMLbot". ALICE,
> then, is the mother of all AIMLbots, the Gaia of AIMLbots. ALICE is the
> official AIMLbot of http://www.alicebot.org, and AIML parsers that are
> AIML-compliant receive the Alicebot seal of approval (Program D, Program
> E, etc).

This is a great start, but there are still a few wires crossed and lingering
ambiguity. Below is another suggested model.

Conan

------------------------------------

I actually borrowed this naming from the old testiment (So I guess Mosses
and his scribes get the credits), where the descendants of Adam are
Adamites, the descendants of Seth are Sethites, etc (so it should be
familiar with a lot of people, and its also easy to understand). I quit at
point 8, becuase it starts to lead to the question of, how far down the
inheritance tree do you go until a descenant of George is no longer
recognizalby a descendant of George (when do you start a new line). What
about when a bot inherits from both the Alice and George trees?

There is another area I did not touch, if Alice was ported to some other
techology (like lisp) would a that lisp implementaion of Alice be an
Alicebot?

Assume that someone creates an Aimlbot completely from scratch (not using
even one line from Alice) and names it George.

1. Any bot based on Aiml is an "Aimlbot".

2. Alice is the official AIMLbot of http://www.alicebot.org.

3. A bot at the root of the inheritance heriarchy (the first of its kind) is
the Gaia of all bots dirived from it.

4. Gaia bots are given the Gaia title consisting of that bots name followed
by the word bot. Thus the Alice is designated as the Alicebot, George is
designated as the Georgebot. This title is also the designation for the
class of all bots dirived from the Gaia of the class. All bots dirived from
that class are of that class.

5. All non-Gaia bots carry the designation of the bot at the root of the
heirarchy.

All decendants of Alice are designated as an Alicebot.
All decendants of George are Georgebots.
They are all AimlBots.

Alice is the Gaia of all Alicebots, but is not the Gaia of all Aimlbots.
George is the Gaia of all Georgebots, but is not the Gaia of all Aimlbots.

Alice is not the Gaia of an AimlBot unless that AimlBot is also an Alicebot.
George is not the Gaia of an Aimlbot unless that Aimlbot is also a
Georgebot.

If a bot, Bill, is derived from George, Bill is not an Alicebot, Bill is a
Georgebot.
If a bot, Sally, is derived from Alice, Sally is not a Georgebot, Sally is
an Alicebot.

6. A bot dirived completely from AIML gets the Aimlbot seal of approval of
http://www.alicebot.org.

7. A bot dirived from Alicebot gets the Alicebot seal of approval of
http://www.alicebot.org. A bot dirived from George gets the Georgebot seal
of approval the owner of George (at the owners option).

8. If Sally is a descendant of Alice, Sally is both an Alicebot as well as a
Sallybot.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <askROM@graphpaper.com>
To: <alicebot-general@list.alicebot.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:12 PM
Subject: [alicebot-general] "Alicebot" versus "AIMLbot"

> Conan wrote:
>
> > Q) Whats the definition of "an Alicebot"?
> >
> > I think of an "Alice" bot as being one that focuses on
> > the alice personality. Alice is portable. It would be
> > possible to port Alice to some other form, like implementing
> > Alice in lisp, no aiml at all. Dr. Wallace himself was talking
> > about just this.
>
> I think the confusion over "Alicebot" and "AIMLbot" is about to reach
> critical mass. Up until now the terms have been interchangeable, but
> I've slowly come to agree with Conan that we really ought to separate
> the two terms and allow the AIML format and specification to outgrow its
> roots in the creation of Richard's ALICE.
>
> "Alicebot" is the name of the organization that manages the AIML spec.
> That's cool. But I think I'd stand a better chance of passing muster
> with the Loebner jury if I submitted an "AIMLbot" than if I submitted an
> "Alicebot". The term "Alice" is too closely connected to Richard's
> ALICE, and hence suggests that any bot called an "Alicebot" is
> derivative and unoriginal. I think Alice and AIML need a little more
> distance.
>
> Here's my model: We'll call any bot based on AIML an "AIMLbot". ALICE,
> then, is the mother of all AIMLbots, the Gaia of AIMLbots. ALICE is the
> official AIMLbot of http://www.alicebot.org, and AIML parsers that are
> AIML-compliant receive the Alicebot seal of approval (Program D, Program
> E, etc).
>
> Thus a botmaster can call their bot an AIMLbot without fearing that the
> bot would be confused as an Alice derivative. I think this separation
> will allow AIML to grow to even greater heights.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Cf
>
>
> [christopher eli fahey]
> art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> sci: http://www.askrom.com
> biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-general-admin@list.alicebot.org
> [mailto:alicebot-general-admin@list.alicebot.org] On Behalf Of Conan
> Callen
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:43 PM
> To: alicebot-general@list.alicebot.org
> Subject: Re: [alicebot-general] I'm forking ALICE, and heres why.....
>
>
> "I'm forking ALICE, and heres why ....."
> According to Rich, there's a lot of guys who would like to fork Alice.
>
> Q) Whats the definition of "an Alicebot"?
>
> I think of an "Alice" bot as being one that focuses on the alice
> personality. Alice is portable. It would be possible to port Alice to
> some other form, like implementing Alice in lisp, no aiml at all. Dr.
> Wallace himself was talking about just this.
>
> I think of a Aiml bot as being something loads up amil files which
> describe some bot (Alice or any other bot) and brings that bot to life.
> If the bot is ported to some other format, then it is no longer an Aiml
> Bot. Although a Bot implemented in something other then Aiml, like lisp,
> could potentially use Aiml to handle part of the speech interpretation.
>
>
> It's always a mistake to confuse a specific implementation with the
> underlying technology.
>
> Imagine if the first time that Bjarne Stroustrup demonstrated the new
> "C" language to the AT&T Board, by demonstrating the "Hello World"
> program that he was able to write by leveraging the power of C. After
> the meeting, the marketing group dubbed the language HelloWorld rather
> then C. They decided the message they want to drive in to the minds of
> the consumers (the research & development commuinity) that this language
> is the "HelloWorld" language, its purpose is to work with the HelloWorld
> program.
>
> What would the scientific community thought when the heard that?
>
> ccallen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the alicebot-general mailing list
> Reply to alicebot-general@list.alicebot.org
> Unsubscribe and change preferences at
http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
> Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/
>