Gotcha. In that light, yes, you could consider it a patchwork, I supposed, but I don't imagine the patchwork nature of the movements would project back into the nature of the code itself.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > I can’t see how it would be other than a patchwork sort of thing. To > produce either a new patchwork or another patchwork in a series, you are > forced to invent new shapes. I would suspect that the robots you refer to, > once they have “had a stab at it [a given movement] /put their best foot > forward”, will have to, in correcting and adjusting, invent new movements. > (In both examples, the inventiveness may be v. minor – it’s just that they > do not and cannot proceed from a template). A series of “stabs” at any > course of action will constitute an ad hoc patchwork – as opposed to a > preplanned pattern. > > *From:* Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 11:11 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] The Bricolage [or imrpovisational] Approach to > Computing > > This is not so much a patchwork sort of thing, but rather on-the-fly > course correction, and waiting until the last minute so that only the data > you actually need has to be calculated. I wish I had some references handy, > but unfortunately this is one of those situations where I've read several > articles on the topic but failed to memorize the location where I read > them. If I happen across one again, I'll be sure to post it. > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Aaron: ..the old approach to making robots walk. The robot would >> take a step and then spend hours performing calculus operations on a model >> of the robot's leg to determine how the next step should proceed. The newer >> approach takes a simpler approach of letting the leg itself be its own >> model, and making real-time corrections to its movement as the robot >> recognizes it going the wrong direction. It's this on-the-fly correction >> combined with letting the system be its own model that I see as a good way >> to deal with impossible-seeming computational problems >> >> Aaron, can you provide some refs. on this newer approach in robotics – >> with which I v.much agree. I’ve talked a lot here in the past about the >> improvisational/patchwork approach to AGI. In fact, there is a small amount >> of computational tradition here, apparently – the “bricolage” approach to >> computing: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage >> >> If anyone knows more about that, I’d also be interested to hear. >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4> | > 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-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
