Let's take a poll?
I believe that a minimal AGI core, *sans* KB content, may be around 100K
lines of code.
What are other people's estimates?
YKY
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
estimate it's
features?
Mark
- Original Message -
From: YKY (Yan King Yin)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] small code small hardware
Let's take a poll?
I believe that a minimal AGI core, sans KB content
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 08:42:53PM +0800, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
I believe that a minimal AGI core, sans KB content, may be around 100K
lines of code.
I don't know what 'KB' content is. But the kLoCs are irrelevant, because
the data is where it's at, and it's huge.
What are
On 3/29/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's take a poll?
I believe that a minimal AGI core, *sans* KB content, may be around 100K
lines of code.
What are other people's estimates?
Sounds right to me. I'd put the framework (sans content) as roughly
comparable to a web
I guess (50 to 100 modules) x (500 to 2500 locs) x fudge factor x
language factor
with fudge factor = 2 to 4 and language factor = 1 for eg Python; 5 for
eg C++
i.e. minimum 50 klocs (Python) which is what i wishfully think;
realistically probably closer to 5000 klocs C++
that's of course for the
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:16:09AM -0400, Mark Waser wrote:
I'll go you one better . . . . I truly believe that the minimal AGI
core, sans KB content, is 0 lines of code . . . .
In theory, a TOE can be quite small. In theory, you could have
a low-level physical simulation that's
On 3/29/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll go you one better . . . . I truly believe that the minimal AGI core,
sans KB content, is 0 lines of code . . . .
Just like C compilers are written in C, the AGI should be entirely written
in it's knowledge base (eventually) to the point that
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:35:57AM -0400, Pei Wang wrote:
I have to disagree. The following is adapted from my chapter in the
AGI collection
(http://www.springer.com/west/home/generic/order?SGWID=4-40110-22-43950079-0):
I have to disagree with your disagreement. Provably optimal
On 3/29/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*. Though high-level self-modifying will give the system more flexibility,
it
does not necessarily make the system more intelligent. Self-modifying at
the meta-level is often dangerous, and it should be used only when the
same effect cannot be
On 3/29/07, Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess (50 to 100 modules) x (500 to 2500 locs) x fudge factor x language
factor
with fudge factor = 2 to 4 and language factor = 1 for eg Python; 5 for eg
C++
50-100 modules? Sounds like you have a very unconventional architecture.
Re number of modules - ask any neuroscientist how many modules there are
in the brain... and see which you think you can do without. My approach
was to list important brain modules, delete those that I thought I can
do without, add a very few that they haven't located or seem needed.
Some modules
On 3/29/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what you say, Python sounds like a pretty good *procedural* language
-- would you say it's the easiest way to build an AGI prototype?
Remember this is for the framework (rather than content) we're talking
about, so a procedural
Let's take a poll?
I believe that a minimal AGI core, sans KB content, may be around 100K lines
of code.
What are other people's estimates?
from:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060306104407/www.etla.org/cpan-sloccount-report.txt
Perl CPAN:
15,000,000.
from: http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/
IMHO
IF you can provide a learning environment similar in complexity as our
world
THEN (maximum code size(zipped using Matt Mahoney algorithm) portion
of non-redundant DNA devoted to brain
/IMHO
Some random thoughts.
Any RAM location can link to any other RAM location so there are more
On 3/29/07, kevin osborne wrote:
snip
You could argue that a lot of all this is the same kind of functions
just operating in 'parrellel' with a lot of 'redundancy'.
I'm not sure I buy that. Evolution is a miserly mistress. If thinking
could have been achieved with less, it would have been, and
time,
etc.)? I'm not sure where you're going with this . . . .
- Original Message -
From: Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] small code small hardware
On 3/29/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll go
.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:58 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] small code small hardware
On 3/29/07, Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess (50 to 100 modules) x (500 to 2500 locs) x fudge factor x language
factor
with fudge factor = 2 to 4 and language
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 04:46:59PM +0200, Jean-Paul Van Belle wrote:
Some random thoughts.
Any RAM location can link to any other RAM location so there are more
interconnects.
Not so fast. Memory bandwidth is very limited (~20 GByte/s current,
GDDR3/GPUs are much better, agreed),
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 08:40:02AM -0700, David Clark wrote:
I would like to know what computer executes data without code. None
that I have used since 1976 so please educate me!
The distinction is a bit arbitrary. Machine instructions are nothing
but data to the CPU.
But the lack of
: [agi] small code small hardware
On 3/29/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll go you one better . . . . I truly believe that the minimal AGI
core,
sans KB content, is 0 lines of code . . . .
Just like C compilers are written in C, the AGI should be entirely
written
in it's
an AGI and what exists in our brains.
-- David Clark
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Paul Van Belle
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] small code small hardware
True - many definitions of modules ;-)
My definition: unique
- Original Message -
From: Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] small code small hardware
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 08:40:02AM -0700, David Clark wrote:
I would like to know what computer executes data
than one that doesn't.
Having the ability to modify code at the lower or higher meta levels doesn't
mean that it has to.
-- David Clark
- Original Message -
From: Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] small code small
- Original Message -
From: Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] small code small hardware
Well, once again we need to distinguish two different levels of
language. In my NARS, the system's knowledge/beliefs
- Original Message -
From: Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] small code small hardware
As I said before, I don't think it is a good idea to allow that
flexibility. If all the desired changed can be made
On 3/29/07, David Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said before, I don't think it is a good idea to allow that
flexibility. If all the desired changed can be made in the content
language, why bother to modify the Java code?
Does that mean that 1 algorithm (or a small number of algorithms
Department of Information Systems
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256
Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280
Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21
kevin.osborne [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/03/28 15:57
as a techie: scepticism. I think the 'small code' and 'small
hardware'
people are kidding themselves.
Jean-Paul Van Belle responded to Kevin Osborne:
as a techie: scepticism. I think the 'small code'
and 'small hardware' people are kidding themselves.
Kevin, you're most probably right there.
But remember that us small code people *have* to
have this belief in order to justify ourselves
On 3/28/07, Jean-Paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin, you're most probably right there. But remember that us small code
people *have* to have this belief in order to justify ourselves working as
individuals / tiny teams often during spare time and snatched moments.
A very good
29 matches
Mail list logo
