I am trying to refurbish a database management program that I wrote a few years ago and I keep finding additional lists (indexes) that I have to implement (the class of each of the lists is almost complete) and I just cannot keep it simple. I haven't even started testing any of my AGI theories and the program is already becoming too complicated. I intend on using a lot of data related to a concept (a concept like collection of related data) because one basis of my theories is that it takes a lot of knowledge about a subject to 'know' one simple fact about the subject. So this means that all my lists will add to the complications of the program once I start testing it.
The non-programming resolute skeptics do not realize how complicated a "simple" program can be. My database management program is simple because I am using variations on the same basic algorithms. In fact, the first step of my refurbishing the program was to take the class for the lists and the indexes out of a template that I had written for them and use write individual algorithms for the common algorithms that I had defined in a template 6 or 7 years ago. I found that I did not have enough details to debug the system using the templates even though they were working well and I was not able to figure out how to keep track of run time errors when there was a problem. (That is not an impossible task, but it was just one more thing multiplied over and over again.) Programming is complicated. It may turn out that don't have good AGI because the management system for a program that is supposed to be creative is in itself going to be extremely complicated. So people get stuck into traditional programming methods just because they were partly designed to make programming a little more simple. - Jim Bromer On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > My idea that an AGI program has to have an executive function or > process that it is very simple but it has to be capable of AGI seems > obvious enough. It has to be lightweight or simple because the more > complicated it gets the greater the potential it will have to create > logjams. It might turn out that a lot of the potential for logjams > may be due to programming errors, but just as every little detail can > add some greater complexity to the programming, so can each detail add > to the complexity of the AGI program as it runs. > > Secondly, the recognition that the integration of Conceptual Structure > is the key to making it work is also a potential key to making the AGI > part relatively simple. Conceptual Structure is not a blanket > abstraction that the programmer completely details with his program > but a more creative structure that the program must create. So, yes, > Conceptual Structure is an abstract system - or more accurately > Conceptual Structure will consist of multiple implementations of > abstract systems - but it will be systems that are generated by the > AGI program as it is running. This idea of the Conceptual Structure, > which is based on the fact that concepts play roles when integrated > with other concepts, has to be kept simple or else it will be too > complicated and too slow for the program to manage it. > > Finally the program has to use rational creativity and it has to use > some kind of trial and error method. But the interesting thing about > this theory is that now I that I have an initial conjecture about > Conceptual Structure I should be able to craft it with as much control > as I need. Presuming that at first I will need to find a way to input > many of the details of how concepts should be integrated means that my > first endeavors would not really be AI or AGI even if my current > theory works. But at some point I hope to be able to figure out a way > for the program to learn how to determine more of the steps to > intelligently integrate conceptual structures. > > One theory that was never established, even weakly, in experiment was > that once you figured out how to create an AI program that it should > eventually become more adept at learning new things. I believe that > the theory of Conceptual Structures would make that feasible - if the > theory is any good at all. And this is how you could test the program > to compare it against competing AGI programs. It could learn new > things and integrate it as long as you could teach it. > > Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
