On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:58:03AM -0800, Tracy R Reed wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:41:23AM +0000, Ian Clarke spake thusly: > > When and who "scoffed"? Quotes please. I was carefully picking through > > the NGR code and encouraging others to do-so. The scientific method is > > to conduct an experiment, and see whether things improve. To the extent > > a scientific method can reasonably be followed with Freenet, it is. > > toad, last week I think. I don't have the IRC logs hanging around. > > > By that argument almost none of non-symbolic AI would work since > > frequently it finds solutions to problems which are extremely difficult > > for people to decipher. > > But people understand how those things work and they know what they are > supposed to do and they usually know when they are actually working. There > is code in freenet which actively promotes specialization and which routes > to other nodes based on their specialization betting that the chances of > that node having the data are greater than others. That stuff does not yet > seem to be working. Don't get me wrong, I'm patient and I know this stuff > is hard. I just don't want anyone to think freenet meets expectations for > a functioning network. :)
AFAICS, NGRouting should have *more* obvious specialization than classic routing, because of the relatively small amount of information in the estimators. Classic routing allowed many tiny specializations - NGRouting doesn't understand such things, it's about a big dip in the graph, or maybe two big dips in the graph. And we did see obvious specialization in the classic routing once upon a time. > > > Can you find information in a scalable manner? Lets, for the sake of > > argument, assume you can. What is the CHK of the information at the > > center of your specialization? > > You almost confused me a second time because I was about to pull up my > datastore histogram. You asked me this question on IRC once. I'll tell you > the same thing I told you then: Linux is the "CHK" or "key" of the > information at the center of my specialization. Logistics and aircraft > maintenance is the CHK of my fathers. Networking is the CHK of my > roommates. I know what they specialize in and I route to them > appropriately when I need something in that area. If nobody specialized in > anything in the real world we would have problems. > > > You obviously aren't very familiar with non-symbolic AI. Examples would > > include anything that relies on a neural network (such as those that > > analyze your credit card transactions to spot fraud), or a genetic > > algorithm. > > No, I'm not. But I bet that when people write code for non-symbolic AI > they know how the code is supposed to work and what the end result should > look like. The credit card company expects their code to actually find > fraud. If it didn't appear to turn up fraud and the programmer said, "Oh, > this is just non-obvious fraud" he wouldn't be taken very seriously. :) > > -- > Tracy Reed > http://copilotconsulting.com > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
