On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]>wrote: > In reality an AGI is like building a whole brain, it has to do lots of > things, including managing it's own software, hardware, keeping track of > goals, and a whole slew of things. > Due to the incrementality of the roadmap, it is possible to do a little at > a time. Having real tangible results every step of the process, building on > what was before. > Every feature addition is testable an in line with creating a general > intelligence operating system or Brain, that can manage a robot-body or > even a human community. > --- > > Well, I am skeptical about the underlying basis for your transformation of > HSPL into a genuine English speaking AGI, but it easier for me to start > with the easier stuff. > > I am working on easier stuff, in terms that HSPL is like a "sentence-oriented programming language". > You seem to be saying that you are able to build a program that is as > complicated as a brain a little at a time and that the program would work > as a viable AGI program, and you only have to rely on incremental feature > testing without creating a simple model of how the mind works or how the > artificial mind would work. > Sure I have already, there are in fact many models of how "artificial minds" or operating systems works. I frequently study the variety of kinds for inspiration. > Or if you do feel that you have pretty good ideas about how the project > would work as an integrated whole you don't feel that it is necessary > to make tests to see if those ideas are actually feasible. > Well plenty of people have written programming languages and operating systems before, so they are quite feasible. > I am not trying to discourage you from working on your program but this > is exactly the kind of planning that I think is dubious. If it works then > you were right, but if it doesn't then you are still right you just have to > add some more features incrementally. > Well it's not always as I expect, sometimes I need to make some modifications to smooth things out, though it's really all in the natural course of things. After coding is debugging and testing, it doesn't usually work any other way. > > I want to jump into testing a simplified version of my integrated ideas as > soon as I can. I want to cut the frills down so I can try something truly > interesting as soon as possible. I see incremental feature development > as a necessity, but not a substitute of finding ways to test the > feasibility of your ideas. > > It is true that as you work you may discover that some things that you > thought would be difficult turn out to be simple, and you might be able to > make your project more dependent on those parts that work out. However, > that is not a substitute for seeing if the exciting parts of your ideas > were feasible. > > Am I the only one who uses the word "feasibility" in this group? > > Jim Bromer > Er well, in the whole of creation anything is possible. Best way of seeing if something is feasible is figuring out how to make it happen. For instance there have been plenty of times, when American scientists have said something isn't feasible (space flight, high speed torpedos, etc) and the Ruski's who weren't as concerned about "can it be done?" simply went ahead and did it. I can't really give you a mathematical proof, that it is possible to have a baby, but it happens all the time. Much as programming languages, and operating systems get developed and deployed. > > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> It's good to get the ideas into something more tangible like programs. >>>> >>> Once you start to create an actual program your original options close >>> in on your plans. One of the problems in developing a viable AGI program is >>> that it has to be kept simple. You might have different methods that are >>> called in for separate cases but that does not always work so well. >>> >> >> You sound like you're coming from Object Oriented perspective, >> though that really is an outdated form of development, >> that is incompatible with concurrency, >> and leads to lots of code duplication. >> >> Functional and even procedural paradigms are better suited for code >> re-use. >> >>> If you find that after whichever period of time you aren't getting >>>> much anywhere with your chosen route, perhaps you'll choose to contribute >>>> to another AGI project, perhaps my own. >>>> I did a version release today, now have support for primitive variables >>>> :-). By next version release quite possibly will be able to do factorial or >>>> some other simple procedures. >>>> And likely by next year will have English grammar, >>>> allowing for easier verification by others with smaller learning curve >>>> >>> What does that mean? How does it support primitive variables. And how >>> would you change your plans if something did not work. For instance, if it >>> did not have English grammar how would that affect your concepts about AGI? >>> >> >> Er well it currently uses SOV post-position grammar, the most common form >> of grammar in the world, instead of SVO pre-positions which are used in >> some of the most popular language such as English, Mandarin and Spanish. >> >> Though it is really a very simple transformation to turn it into >> pre-positions, and then a few inference rules to make it support SVO. >> So it will certainly have support for English grammar, it's just a matter >> of time and effort. >> >> The most important thing is to identify problems that can be solved and >>> problems that you don't have an answer for. After working on logical >>> satisfiability I have come to the conclusion that I don't have a solution >>> to logical complexity. So then in order to make my AGI program work it >>> would have to work by finding a way to overcome the problem of logical >>> complexity by some other means. >>> >> It would have to acquire a great deal of information by serendipity and >>> then make 'intuitive' guesses about relations that can only be structured >>> through correlation and the recognition that if process X could be applied >>> to situation Y then it suggest a path toward finding a solution. >>> >> >> >> ? SAT-solving is really a very minor component of making an AGI. >> I know it was main component of my 4th year AI class, >> though now the whole program has been canceled. >> >> But what if my ideas did not work? Then it would tell me that I had >>> been making some mistake. If I could find good candidates that kept the >>> program from working then I should be able to test them pretty quickly. >>> Perhaps basic correlation is not good enough. Perhaps the program has to >>> rely on some kind of enhanced correlation where there are numerous reasons >>> to believe the process X *can* be applied to situation Y and that it *will* >>> lead to a path toward a solution. >>> Jim Bromer >>> >> >> That sound very narrow-AI as your focusing on some problem-solver or >> something. >> >> In reality an AGI is like building a whole brain, it has to do lots of >> things, including managing it's own software, hardware, keeping track of >> goals, and a whole slew of things. >> >> Due to the incrementality of the roadmap, it is possible to do a little >> at a time. Having real tangible results every step of the process, building >> on what was before. >> >> Every feature addition is testable an in line with creating a general >> intelligence operating system or Brain, that can manage a robot-body or >> even a human community. >> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
