RE: Profiling in the News: Was: RE: Taxonomies, URN's etc..

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Gee, no blood to mop up?

You guys are no fun!

I'm kidding. Just for the newcomers: This exhange is very close to 
operational, whereas my use of the lamppost was aimed at the more 
fundamental point that barring some obvious miscreant, we'll 
basically have to accept as human as any entity that asserts itself 
as human.

Ciao,
Rex

We can apply our identifiers, but unless At 3:45 PM -0500 8/30/01, 
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>The profile is the point.  We
>never claimed we could model humans.  We claimed
>we could create systems that enable humans
>to model humans which if you think about it,
>is what profiling is.   We told the world
>this was about reducing miscommunication.
>Your public safety systems do this kind of
>thing every day and they use these with other
>information to make decisions about how,
>where and when to deploy agency resources.
>Without episodic memory, for example,
>gang rivals are put into the same cells
>with bad results.  Child molesters are
>allowed into the general prison population
>with bad results.  Every time a prisoner
>is booked, a psychological profile is created
>that is used to determine how resources will
>be applied (for example, a suicide watch).
>There are numerous cases where such profiling
>has enabled serial killers to be located and
>more when they were not and continued killing
>because the information systems did not share
>the profiles and this is true on both sides
>of the pond.  As a matter of fact, the British
>systems are working very hard to solve this
>problem *today*.  I read their RFPs.
>
>Hypotheticals are a way to find in a situation
>a matching theory so it can be tested.  In this case, similar to
>the kind of deduction Holmes might employ, the
>art is one of recording and assessing observations.
>In the case of the girl, she does have episodic
>memory and that is beyond the observation but not
>her ability to select.  We have to account for
>that or otherwise, we can't use this for some
>applications such as autonomous agents.  They
>depend on episodic memory for negotiation.  Unless
>limited by design, they can also screw up badly
>using it just as people can with the exception
>that they may not have a "this doesn't feel right"
>sense.  I note this in my Golem paper as part
>of the limiting scope of authority for certain
>decisions, ultimately, who chooses choices.
>
>I provided an example in which the miscommunication
>was possible but did not occur and asked if
>we could construct a plausible description
>of what kept that from happening.  It is just
>as likely that based on the context, she would
>have looked at the Dog:dog and said, "yes that
>absolutely is an ugly dog."  Now they would be
>in agreement but failed to communicate.  They
>might go on through the night talking about the
>"ugly dog" with each communication getting ever
>more hilarious.  We also have a show on the
>comedy cable about George W. Bush and his wife
>in which he is talking about getting rid of their old
>cat and she thinks he is talking about her genitals
>based on a word for both.  Comedy works by
>stretching the plausible into the implausible
>to the point of pain.
>
>In the beginning, I claimed the central metaphor
>of HumanML would be "awareness".  This was not
>without thought.
>
>Len
>http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
>
>Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
>Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@mysterylights.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 3:23 PM
>To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Rex Brooks
>Cc: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: Profiling in the News: Was: RE: Taxonomies, URN's etc..
>
>
>>  Her reply is based on the conjunction of her (emotional)
>>  reaction to her interpretation of the statement and the
>>  emotional reaction is based on her past history and the
>>  (culture) she is a part of that considers calling a woman
>  > a dog an (insult:symbol)
>
>Ah, but now you're building up a hypothetical psycological profile of her
>that I am not aware of, and that makes the entire situation unrealistic.
>What if she doesn't consider that event an (insult:symbol)? There could be
>any number of reasons for one person ascribing the label of
>lamppost-attracted-object to (which is actually hypothetical in this case
>too... anyone who's read "Blindless" could not do such a thing!) and
>another countering with a suggestion of "beautiful" (even considering that
>that two classes are not disjoint).
>
>But all I'm really saying is that you should have modelled this on two
>entirely abstract people, rather than trying to inflict YAUEC (unrealistic
>event-case) on the world. I agree with the rest of your theorized model.
>
>>  She counters with beautiful because
>>  she has a goal and it is now up to
>>  you to figure out what it is. If she
>>  slaps you (haptic) try again.
>
>We have a show in the U.K. which may or may not air over the pond, and
>which you may or may not be aware of, called "The Fast Show". It has a
>number of excellent actors and comedians in it, and has met universal
>acclaim.
>
>One of the charaters from one of the sketches, played by Arabella Weir, has
>the catchphrase, "does my bum look big in this?". It's interesting that in
>all of the shows that I can remember this sketch being done, no one has
>replied to that question...
>
>--
>Kindest Regards,
>Sean B. Palmer
>@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
>:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request