RE: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype

[Josh White]

> HAL believes the following statement is FALSE:

I think this will be better phrased as:

HAL does NOT believe:

In general we've got to work hard, especially in a proof of concept
prototype, to make the text as simple and clear as possible, to normal
users.  

--------------
To that goal, I propose a New Idea (as if we need any more! But this one's
good! :)

Do it as a cartoon panel.

First:  "Water is lighter than air"

Then a GIF animation of HAL looking at this fretfully, and shaking his head
"no"

Then two buttons: a hammer and a kiss.

If you click the hammer, a huge cartoon hammer bonks HAL on the head. He
looks alarmed, then says (in a cartoon text bubble) "thanks, I needed that!"

The kiss button, causes a lipstick print on HAL's cheek.  He grins.

I'll ask the www.dieselsweeties.com artist to make us the graphics for free.

-Josh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
>  On Behalf Of William L. Jarrold
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:53 PM
> To: Joshua N Pritikin
> Cc: 'Open Heart Logic, dev mailing list'
> Subject: RE: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 10:50 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 02:02 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> >>>> Jesus loves his father. [q]
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and then later, they can click on this and see why.  
> I.e. they 
> >>>> would see the premises which were:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sons love their fathers. [p1]
> >>>> Jesus is God's son. [p2]
> >>>
> >>> Hrm, do you want to do this (click to see reasons) for the pilot?
> >>
> >> Yes, the would be my moderately strong preference.
> >>
> >> We must remember that we are building a platform for doing 
> all sortsa 
> >> experiments.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > The web interface is easy, but we have to load the data into the 
> > database.  In what scriptable format do you want to provide this 
> > information?
> 
> By data, I assume you mean the content of the items, right?
> 
> (Here is where I be comin' from: I usually think of data as 
> somethign that 
> we scientist collect rather than put in our experimental apparatus.)
> 
> So, assuming I am correct, I would like to defer on this 
> until we nail 
> down design issues such as the look and feel of the 
> interface, the nature 
> of the reversed, or mutated etc type items.
> 
> BUT, enough with my ceaseless procrastination!!!, here is a 
> rough stab.
> 
> For each item there will be...
> 
> a) an item id
> 
> b) THING-TO-RATE: a hunk of html text that when plugged into 
> your doodad is the thing that they will be rating.
> 
> c) BACKGROUND: another hunk of html text that will be 
> viewable if the participant wants to see where b) came from.  
> (this would contain info like "This item was reversed.  Click 
> here to see what we mean by reversed." or "This item was 
> actually a deduction that HAL made after doing some thinking. 
>  This is the chain of deductions that HAL made in order to 
> come up with that deduction."
> 
> ...in the beginning we will hand craft b) and c).  In our stary-eyed 
> futures we will have a program generate b) and c) based on 
> the output of an AI (such as Cyc or KM plus its CLib).
> 
> ...Also I hope you can do this so that we can add more fields 
> beyond a, b 
> and c if we need to.  Is that posssible?
> 
> Also, the item id should encode what condition the item was 
> in.  E.g. (i) was 
> it a deduction or a ground fact?  (ii) Was it from Cyc or KM? 
>  (iii) Was 
> it reversed or unreversed?....Hrm, perhaps the better idea is 
> to leave the 
> item id be any unique char string and have other fields for 
> (i), (ii), 
> (iii).  Well, Joshua, you are the programer dude.  Your call.
> 
> >
> >>> Hrm, instead of telling me which items you want, why not 
> just modify 
> >>> the attached script?
> >>
> >> Sure, will do, but not right now.
> >
> > One more question, for the reversed items do we tell people 
> after they 
> > rate the item?
> 
> Yes.  (As a parity check I will restate wha is hopefully obvious) We 
> definitely would *not* tell them before they rate it that it 
> is reversd. 
> If we did tell them before, this would tip them off that they 
> should rate 
> it unbelievable.
> 
> > For example:
> >
> > HAL believes the following statement is FALSE:
> >
> >  Water is lighter than air.
> >
> > Most experts agree that this statement is highly unbelievable.
> 
> Minor point:  I would phrase this as "HAL thinks" rather than "Most 
> experts agree."
> 
> >
> > If you want it to look like this then we need to store a flag 
> > somewhere indicating that the assertion is reversed.  Hrm.  
> I'll think 
> > about it.
> 
> Maybe.  I was thinking that the "This item is reversed" clue 
> would be stored in "c) BACKGROUND:".
> 
> But as I alluded above, we might not want to overload the 
> item id and thus there are other reasons to have a field 
> include whether the item is reversed or unervrsed or who-knows-what.
> 
> Bill
> 
> >
> > --
> > If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
> > (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Heartlogic-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev
>