Just think of what initially inspired you to build it, then add a version number. then do a search to ensure no one else has that name.
Good luck. If it works I'm always looking for components to integrate with. Perhaps there may some synergies to be had. Cheers, ~PM Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:09:48 -0500 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Superficiality Produces Misunderstanding - Not Good Enough It still needs one. I don't want to name it after the techniques I'm using, because I don't want to tie myself down to a particular approach, should I decide something else is better, but I'd like it to be at least somewhat descriptive. Any suggestions? -- Sent from my Palm Pre On Oct 23, 2012 9:50 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: What is the name of your system Aaron? ~PM Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:16:12 -0500 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Superficiality Produces Misunderstanding - Not Good Enough Ok, "implemented" is the wrong word, since it's still evolving. "Accounted for" is a better choice. I too have a very healthy respect for the complexity and subtlety of human thought. This project grew in large part out of an extreme dissatisfaction I feel towards traditional approaches that make too many assumptions and breeze past too many important aspects of the problem. I do my best to hold myself accountable to the broad scope of the problem by looking at the most difficult, awkward examples of human behavior and capabilities. In language things like puns, idioms, incomplete sentences, inline corrections, etc. Many of these are not implemented as yet, but I have restricted myself to design choices that provide a clear path forward to their implementation. When I come across new, strange things, I force myself to modify my design until they start to make sense. Things can remain unimplemented, but they cannot remain unexplained. In this way, I hope to move towards a solid foundation of understanding that encompasses the full spectrum of language and thought, not just a toy system that works off of unfounded assumptions and oversimplifications. If my concepts of how language and thought can't explain everything I stumble across, they're inadequate, and I refuse to leave them unrevised. I'm learning a lot as I build, and on more than one occasion I've scratched & started over because of some subtle flaw that initially went unrecognized. The positive side is that each time I do this, my system becomes more robust and is easier to implement, the latter mainly due to experience and familiarity on those portions not being redesigned from the ground up. The latest revision was to properly work in the distinct behavior of determiners versus quantifiers, since (taking a mathematical analogy a bit far) determiners act more like named constants and quantifiers act more like re-bindable variables. I'll get there eventually, but I'm not cutting myself any slack or taking any shortcuts. -- Sent from my Palm Pre AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
