What is the difference between your new version of premise and the older version given that they are both based on text?
Jim Bromer On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > Try writing it in Premise. > > I have a new version if you'd like. It may be easier, being a > literal-based language, > as opposed to a symbolic language. > > ~PM > > > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:18:41 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [agi] It would be easy to write an artificial language that > was similar to a natural language > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > Well just to finish, the plan is that I will start by defining and > > using a simple language to express simple ideas. At first I will use > > extensive annotation to help define how the program should use the > > language. Since I will also be modifying the program as I go, the > > programming and the language will create a simulation of how the > > program might work. Of course it would be simplistic and it would be > > based on the artificiality of using the annotations (as well as other > > analysis of the language) to determine some actions that it should > > take in trying to use the ideas expressed. I will not be programming > > the response mechanisms to seem like the program knew things that it > > had not learned, I will be designing the program to use the > > 'knowledge' that it had previously derived through the exchanges that > > it had with me, the 'user'. > > > > So at first it will be a crude simulation of an AGI program. I will be > > programming it, using the language as well as the developing > > programming, to act as I wished it would act. As the program started > > to learn some things for itself, I will then start designing the > > program to use that kind of learned knowledge more effectively and I > > should be annotating the text in a way that will be a better > > simulation of what the program might eventually be able to do based on > > my observations of how it reacts. And, over time, as I learn what > > might be more feasible, my annotations should look more like the sort > > of thing that the program might actually be able to derive for itself. > > My hope is that I will eventually find practical (or feasible) methods > > for the program to use and my annotations will become more simple and > > more casual. It would be impossible to annotate every detail that is > > needed to understand a language that was like a natural language. > > > > At first my annotations will not look like the kinds of relations a > > computer program might actually detect, but eventually my simulations > > should look more and more like the kind of relations a feasible > > program could detect and the program will be able to figure out more > > for itself. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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/303/24379807-653794b5> | > 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
