You'd be using C# instead of C++ if you went with .Net. ~PM
> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:17:26 -0500 > Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Reflection seems interesting I want to read more about it. But there > are other steps that I could have taken which would have been more > direct. I could for example use a Debug dump and dump the values of > the data when they were in the template section so that I could see > what they were. Or I could add other functions that would allow me to > see a value inside the template if I chose to. However, since I > realized that debugging wasn't going to end when the data management > part was working I felt that it was better to implement the templates > by type (within the classes that were organized around the arrays that > held the data). I did some timing tests and found that type arrays > could be used more efficiently than arrays which were built on > classes. It is probably little-O but it turns into Big-o when it is > used as frequently as my program uses them. > > I have been writing special algorithms to test the data structures as > I was working on them and I found that this made a big improvement in > development time. There have been no surprises like the situation > where ten or more bugs are interacting at the same time making the > debugging impossible. > > And I noticed that .Net does have reflection - but not for C++. > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Piaget Modeler > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds like you need continuous integration techniques more than anything > > else. If you haven't already, > > for your next project assemble a Test Driven Development platform JUnit / > > NUnit etc. and develop test cases for > > each of your Abstract Data Types (or classes as they're called nowadays). > > > > Best of luck. > > > > ~PM > > > > ________________________________ > > Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:46:38 -0500 > > > > Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > I didn't mean to be so sharply critical. I was trying to say that if a > > programmer thinks an AGI program could start with a simple program and build > > itself then he should try to create something that actually had the power to > > learn how to build itself. I have thought about this and it is not easy > > "simple" but simple examples are probably feasible. If someone thinks that > > an AGI program can feasibly start out simple then try something and let us > > know how far you get it to go. > > > > I was using my C++ templates with data arrays. So all the most common > > functions of putting data into the array, finding it, retrieving it, > > distributing the data (in the mundane sense of the term), creating an index > > over the distributed data and the implementation of accessing the index as > > the first step to searching for the data and coordinating one or two data > > accesses was what I encoded into the template form. The moment I started > > working with coordinated data for the most elementary stages of the AI part > > where I needed three, four and more data arrays to be used in a coordinated > > way, the debugging problem turned into an impossible task. Although the > > templates had been tested I hadn't tested the all the particular methods > > that the templates could be a part of and I wasn't able to follow all the > > debug paths into the templates because the programming debugger did not > > reveal the values or the types of data when it stepped through the > > templates. > > > > Case-Based Reasoning is a historical AI method. You make them extensible by > > using a particular context-free language that allows you to program the > > computer to represent new cases. Theoretically, contrary to Tintner's > > argument, it would be feasible to use CBR to discover and represent truly > > novel situations. However, this theoretical argument is not easy if you > > haven't already been there and the tendency to rely on already proven > > methods means that it is pretty predictable that someone who tries > > Case-Based Reasoning is not going to figure this out. I want my AGI program > > to be able to do some genuine learning using a trial and error method. Just > > as I (believe that I) don't need to use predefined human-language syntax to > > get the program to acquire a rudimentary human language, I also (believe > > that I) don't need to use predefined cases to get the program to acquire > > cases where it could use case-based reasoning. > > > > Chomsky's hierarchy of grammar is based on computational methods. Whenever > > we write a computer program we are using computational methods so we can say > > that a computer program is supplied with predefined grammars. However, the > > point is that my program will have the potential to acquire new pieces of > > grammar. Similarly every program uses case-based reasoning in the form of > > conditional branches. However, the goal I am striving for is to get the > > program to do some genuine learning on its own. This means that it will > > have to use a trial and error approach to learn about new things. So it > > will be able to pick up something that looks a lot like case based reasoning > > without my programming it directly into the program. On the other hand, if > > I was successful then it might be argued that I had developed a new way of > > programming a computer through instruction. This new way of programming > > would not produce programs the way we usually do because what the program > > could learn would be mediated by many other impressions that it formed from > > its IO data environment. So while it might learn, for example, to build a > > case for discerning when I am trying to teach it something new, it might > > mediate an effective method for learning new things with other information > > that it had previously acquired that it might use to interpret the new > > information with something that it had already learned. Since interpreting > > a situation in terms of similar situations which it knew something about is > > the natural policy of artificial thought this should be something that > > occurs frequently. So its recognition that I am trying to teach it something > > new might be mediated and defeated by its recognition that what I was trying > > to teach seemed familiar in some way. > > > > Should I have answered no but I have studied case-based reasoning carefully > > and I was using templates to represent char strings and ID values that refer > > to collections of derived relations between the data objects and strings > > formed from ID references and functional operations designed to work with > > the ID references? > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Have you tried any Case-Based Reasoning approaches? > > > > If engineered correctly the cases can be human readable, yet extensible. > > Starting with simple cases and increasing complexity. > > > > What data structures were your common templates attempting to embody? > > > > ~PM > > > > > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > > -- > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: 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
