I was once upon a time quite expert in c++. But I grew very tired of the language. It throws away almost all really useful information about program structure and inter-relationship of components at compile time. Thus it is next to useless for higher order programming. It is great for making tight relatively small components of a larger system. But not for building that larger system, especially if it needs to be highly adaptive and reconfigurable. I don't think the path to the ultimate unknown how to get there uber-software is with a low level language not that far from assembler. That is certainly not what you want to use for exploratory programming. It is too heavy and inflexible.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > .Net can still be used with C++ but they do not seem to be encouraging > programmers to use it. However, I doubt if they are going to discontinue > their C++ compliers in the near future. > > Thanks for the reference to the Constructivist approach. I had heard of > constructivist methods before but I really did not recall anything about > them until someone mentioned something about them last month in another > group. I think my ideas go beyond the Constructivist method but there are > many similarities. > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Piaget Modeler > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Jim Bromer > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/2997756-fc0b9b09> | > 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
