Hi Curtis, On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Curtis Michael Faith < curtis.m.fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 3) We should be thinking of semantic flows instead of the atoms of state > that result from changes in flows. Semantic flows represent isomorphisms of > state applied to a sub-graph. > Not to make your head explode, or anything like that, but there is some synchronicity in the universe. Yesterday's news includes an obit for *Vladimir Voevodsky https://plus.google.com/u/0/+johncbaez999/posts/VhWp7s1PYp3 <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+johncbaez999/posts/VhWp7s1PYp3> *which contains remarks similar in flavor: "infinity-groupoids are sets in the next dimension". Voevodsky is known for instigating work on the HoTT book -- Homotopy Type Theory -- which basically shows how computer programs, logical proofs and similar "discrete" networks can be "continuously" transformed homotopically, isomorphically into one-another. It is this work that has revolutinzed theorem provers (such as Coq, or Ben's favorite, Agda) in mathematics. I've been trying to steal ideas from that general area and apply them to opencog/atomese. The book is free, and anyone interested in what a "type" is should read at least the first few chapters. The types of that book are more-or-less exactly the same thing as the types in opencog, or the types in link-grammar. > This happens to be the starting point for SingulairyNET agents. What flows > in as data and what flows out as results? So we are working on this problem > at the high-level while I and others are thinking about how best to > represent the abstract constructs definable in atomese. > I promised earlier to write a smart contract in atomese, and I haven't forgotten that promise. The current stumbling block is how to define a container in atomese. (a container being a secure "sandbox" in which crypto operations can be safely performed away from the eyes of spies.) > > In many ways, I see these times for AGI as akin to the early days of > programming when we first made the jump from machine language to assembly > language and then we got C and Fortran and Cobol, with the semantics tied > much more closely and directly to the problem domain: whether systems- or > scientific- or business-programming. > > So I see OpenCog Atomese as the assembly code for Sophia's mind. We want > it to stay flexible because we do not want to limit what is possible. But > it is too much work to write in assembly all the time. we need compressions > of complexity and a higher-level form for more efficient and expressive > work at higher levels. > > We have not yet built, anyone anywhere yet, the semantic analog to C for > AI, let alone the more modern variants like Go, Rust, Swift or even Python. > Yes. --linas > There is an impedance mismatch between the ways that current > batch-oriented Von-Neumann bottlenecked systems run and the ideal ways that > a mind wants to learn in parallel. There is a greater need for efficient > shared semantic context among the many parts communicating. There is a > greater need for visualization into the implications and nuanced semantics > implied by the connections. > > Much work to be done but all identified and doable. > > > -- *"The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the problem is that it's too stupid and already has." * -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA34QFFnWui1VhKUJY%2Bye6t85Va3kew%2BXj5QzC39iq9%2BsYA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
