On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's good to get the ideas into something more tangible like programs. > Once you start to create an actual program your original options close in on your plans. One of the problems in developing a viable AGI program is that it has to be kept simple. You might have different methods that are called in for separate cases but that does not always work so well. > > If you find that after whichever period of time you aren't getting much > anywhere with your chosen route, perhaps you'll choose to contribute to > another AGI project, perhaps my own. > I did a version release today, now have support for primitive variables > :-). By next version release quite possibly will be able to do factorial or > some other simple procedures. > And likely by next year will have English grammar, > allowing for easier verification by others with smaller learning curve > What does that mean? How does it support primitive variables. And how would you change your plans if something did not work. For instance, if it did not have English grammar how would that affect your concepts about AGI? The most important thing is to identify problems that can be solved and problems that you don't have an answer for. After working on logical satisfiability I have come to the conclusion that I don't have a solution to logical complexity. So then in order to make my AGI program work it would have to work by finding a way to overcome the problem of logical complexity by some other means. It would have to acquire a great deal of information by serendipity and then make 'intuitive' guesses about relations that can only be structured through correlation and the recognition that if process X could be applied to situation Y then it suggest a path toward finding a solution. But what if my ideas did not work? Then it would tell me that I had been making some mistake. If I could find good candidates that kept the program from working then I should be able to test them pretty quickly. Perhaps basic correlation is not good enough. Perhaps the program has to rely on some kind of enhanced correlation where there are numerous reasons to believe the process X *can* be applied to situation Y and that it *will* lead to a path toward a solution. Jim Bromer On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey I'm just offering you support to do some real coding. > It's good to get the ideas into something more tangible like programs. > > If you find that after whichever period of time you aren't getting much > anywhere with your chosen route, perhaps you'll choose to contribute to > another AGI project, perhaps my own. > > I did a version release today, now have support for primitive variables > :-). By next version release quite possibly will be able to do factorial > or some other simple procedures. > And likely by next year will have English grammar, > allowing for easier verification by others with smaller learning curve. > > I'm programming in Assembly, but it is quite simple, > only 16 assembly commands used, all register-machine, > makes it easy to port and that kinda stuff. > > You would certainly have the capacity to improve upon current AGI > programs, can look at the current roadmap and see where your ideas might > fit in > https://sourceforge.net/p/rpoku/code/ci/dc0d7886965d5cab645a4d5a220391b316c7c388/tree/roadmap.txt?format=raw > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The most important case would be the one where it does show some >> capability of learning a crude simplistic language but where it either >> lacks subtlety or where it shows a wide variation of depth. In some cases, >> for example, it might seem to be working but then it just cannot continue >> to learn new things about a particular subject or where other subjects >> which are comparably as easy seem to be totally beyond it. This is along >> the lines of how other AI projects have fared. Let's say that my project >> did turn out like this. Then in order to show that it was a valid concept >> I would have to advance the program so that it was able to go further than >> it had. The thing is that although the various AI methods are able to do >> some tasks better than others they all fail at a level below what we need >> to see in order to compare them to children. So being human like is not >> the immediate goal, and being really smart is not the immediate goal. But I >> would need to show that I could improve on contemporary AGI programs in >> order to demonstrate that my ideas were workable and since my program would >> be limited I would need to show that some improvements could be made to my >> program. >> >> Jim Bromer >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d> | >> 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/303/10561250-470149cf> | > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
