I was admitting that my plan to teach a computer to interpret simple text by heavily annotating it to assist the program to relate new input to previous text would be equivalent to saying that I would be 'programming' it to respond appropriately to the text. But the question is: would this method work to give such a program more traction than the typical AGI effort? Because if it did then then even though my programming (using annotated text) would only simulate 'understanding' the fact that it would work would mean that it might be used as a model for developing the program further. My goal then is to create a weak general AI (a weak-AGI) program that was capable of initially doing a tiny bit of thinking for itself but which I could gradually improve over time.
I was thinking of using Piaget Modeller's program to do a quick initial simulation to see which of my ideas needed changing fast as I gradually continue and expand the preliminary testing of my current program. I would really enjoy learning Forth but it is not a priority right now because I have already made a substantial commitment to my current programming. Jim Bromer On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Stanley Nilsen via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/17/2014 10:02 AM, Jim Bromer via AGI wrote: >> >> >> This is just a thought experiment now but it is something that I am >> thinking might be worthwhile trying and which I will use in at least a >> limited way in the program I am working on. So then the 'user' would program >> the program to construct relations between the objects of the language. The >> idea of using a program to write a program may seem unusual to the >> non-programmers who might read this but it is the way it works. But then, >> just as a programming language is used to program a computer, I am saying >> that the artificial language that could be defined by the 'user' would then >> also be used to 'program' the computer to use knowledge that was input and >> shared with it. Of course, if I wrote such a program I would be able to >> define the artificial language as I went (as the 'user') with the central >> ideas that I have in mind. Not everyone would be able to do that. Using the >> program (to define and use an artificial AI language that I have in mind) >> would require specialized training. But that is also true of programming >> languages (the programs that implement the programming languages.) Not >> everyone gets programming. >> > > Jim, did you ever dabble with "Fourth" in your career? As I read the way > your new language would work, it reminded me of fourth. Fourth came on the > scene early in the history of personal computers. I once considered it as a > possible alternative to building the CPM bios kernel for an operating > system. Fourth offered a quick way to get a system running. > > My vague recollection is that in Fourth one defines new words that then make > it easier to do the thing you wanted to do - build the application. I read > that the astronomy crowd took up with forth. I didn't ever do much with > fourth and I wouldn't suggest it for AI, or reject it (mentiflex) Fourth > was the first language I heard described as "extensible," but I'm not sure > the tag was appropriate. > > Stan > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5 > 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
