> > If you think that programmers must get an AGI to some level of > intelligence and then it will be smart enough to continue to program > itself, then you think that eventually the AGI must be built on a language > where the AGI can act like a programmer from the inside rather than just > from the outside.
If it's a properly embodied AGI, then it can pull up a seat and write some code just like we do, upload a newly compiled module, and reboot itself if necessary. If it doesn't like doing this over & over, it can simplify the process with some self-surgery to simplify the steps. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:35 PM, David Clark <[email protected]>wrote: > This post concerns the “eleventh rule”.**** > > ** ** > > Why would parallelism be tied to Haskell? Was there parallel code before > Haskell (invented in 1985) and it’s not obvious when Haskell actually got > the ability to execute code in parallel? Mainframes had multiple CPUs > running concurrently by the late 1960’s, early 70’s. I remember an IMSAI > computer that used 256 8080 CPUs in 1975 when I bought my first > microcomputer.**** > > ** ** > > Our CPU’s are inherently sequential like C, Java etc. so is there a > bug-ridden, slow implementation of C in every version of Haskell?**** > > ** ** > > For those who think programming AGI would work well in Haskell or Lisp, > ask yourself this question : Will a working AGI be fully programmed by > people or mostly by itself?**** > > ** ** > > If you believe that 1, 10 or 2000 algorithms need be created by people and > then all that is needed for liftoff is data that can be learned by the AGI > or uploaded, then languages like C++, Java, C#, Haskell or Lisp might be an > acceptable choice for you. If you think that programmers must get an AGI > to some level of intelligence and then it will be smart enough to continue > to program itself, then you think that eventually the AGI must be built on > a language where the AGI can act like a programmer from the inside rather > than just from the outside.**** > > ** ** > > As we all know, there is no difference between code and data in a computer > other than how it is interpreted. If you think that a small amount of code > can be produced and then data itself can be executed as if it were code > then you believe that programming (eventually if not from the start) must > be done from the inside while the program runs.**** > > ** ** > > Haskell doesn’t have the ability to program itself, especially if it is > currently running. I think Haskell has many other fundamental flaws when > used to create AGI but this alone should stop it’s use.**** > > ** ** > > Can Haskell:**** > > **1. **Coordinate many users or tasks that want access to a single > data structure?**** > > **2. **Haskell wants it’s functions to have no “side effects” but > how then do you coordinate many functions accessing the same data structure? > **** > > **3. **What kind of macro structure do all these functions have? > Are all functions in the same name space? How does this work over many > CPUs in a single memory space, over a local area network and over the > internet?**** > > **4. **What tools does Haskell have for coordinating multiple > programmers working on the same project at the same time, from a distance > (local area network or over the internet)?**** > > **5. **What mechanism does Haskell have to encapsulate multiple > functions with a data structure?**** > > **6. **Does Haskell have a full functioned database facility or > does it depend on an outside RDMS system?**** > > ** ** > > Do you believe that AGI is possible without a fast and flexible data store > that is huge, smart and flexible enough to span multiple computers in many > locations? Is RDMS the answer? Would you use the built in triggers and > stored procedures to make the data consistent and fast? If so, where does > Haskell fit into that? Would it be better if Haskell was put into a RDMS > and allowed to be the triggers and stored procedures? What if relational > data is fine but more flexibility is needed to create an AGI? Do you see > the definition for RDMS changing any time soon?**** > > ** ** > > This is a relatively long post BUT unlike Ben, I think that the language > and system that an AGI is created in matters. I am definitely interested > in opposing views!**** > > ** ** > > David Clark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Juan Carlos Kuri Pinto [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* January-23-13 3:37 PM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* [agi] Greenspun's tenth rule and eleventh rule ^_^**** > > ** ** > > Greenspun's tenth rule: Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program > contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation > of half of Common Lisp.**** > > ** ** > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_tenth_rule**** > > ** ** > > Greenspun's eleventh rule: Any sufficiently parallel program written in a > non-purely functional programming language, like C, Assembler, Java, Lisp, > Scheme, and OCaml, contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, > slow implementation of half of Haskell.**** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > 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
