I probably should not bother but what do you mean when you say that my ruminations are becoming increasingly circular and viciously so?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim, > > It is not an attack ad hominem but your ruminations are becoming > increasingly circular and viciously so. Just when I thought we had the > simple project on track you found that either/and the issues are too > subtle and the tools too gross. I think you need a few modernity > updates too when it comes to applied computing, so here we go. There > are tons of "good people" out there that developed hosted or virtual > services so that you dont have to waste your time or money. Hadoop is > of course here to stay and Hortonworks were working on a Windows > version, but they may be giving up, instead virtual machines of their > platform are good for most purposes > http://hortonworks.com/thankyou-hdp20-cp/ . As we discussed before, a > real-time approach may be more fruitful than a kind of AGI > datawarehousing > http://www.information-management.com/dmradio/forget-the-warehouse-why-the-focus-should-be-on-data-flows-10024732-1.html > . The good people at http://www.mongohq.com/home will let you have > 0.5GB on MongoDB for free (and lets not forget such projects are > moving fast, it may already be better than what you remember), and I > guarantee you that if your program makes any progress towards general > intelligence it will discover on its own ways to register for further > free accounts as needed with fake IDs. Redhats OpenShift makes most of > the open source servers and services avalaible at a free tier, God > Bless America! > > In all truth, if one was to write a simple AGI program one would be > advised to write is a module/add-on to some existing open source > server, even as an Apache module, in order to have all the > capabilities of (network) server programs without the overhead. You > could even build simple programs on top of, oh the sacrilege, OpenCog! > > AT > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is a good summary of big data / hadoop. I noticed that Darpa is >> on the Big-Data/Jeff-Hawkins-Prediction-compression bandwagon with >> emphasis on time thrown in. >> >> On 8/21/13, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> http://strata.oreilly.com/2011/01/what-is-hadoop.html >>> Hadoop commentary. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Well I was just telling someone that I should not have referred to my >>>> "database management system," and instead should have used a phrase >>>> like, "data management system," because most people would think of >>>> something like a relational database system (like SQL) when I said >>>> "database management system," whereas the phrase "data management," >>>> could refer to modern data management systems like big data management >>>> or something else. In order to start with something simple I am not >>>> thinking of going big data myself, but my data management system is >>>> not relational either. I was reading that Hadoop is a big data >>>> management system (although I notice that they do refer to it as a >>>> "database management system," in one link that I looked at even though >>>> it was designed for situations where data might not fit into tables) >>>> and it is open source but it looks like it is designed for an Apache >>>> server. I did download an Apache server for my Windows computer and >>>> it was not an end-of-days installation nightmare, but it did take some >>>> hiking on the learning curve. I don't think it is running right now >>>> but I really can't remember how it works. I might have even >>>> uninstalled it. Anyway there should be some other open source data >>>> management systems as well. >>>> >>>> I also looked at Mongo but there was something I did not like about >>>> it. I did not stay with that very long since I had trouble getting it >>>> to run from Windows but there was also an issue where I did not know >>>> how to enforce a type so that if you started out with an array of >>>> numbers, for example, you could start adding strings to the same >>>> group. I guess you could, at the very least, do a read type check for >>>> every write but I didn't get that far. >>>> >>>> I think that if you don't have a good basic data management system >>>> then you are not going to be able to write a good AGI program. It is >>>> just about a pre-requisite. There are trade-offs for writing your own >>>> vs finding something on open source that you could use. I think >>>> carefully looking for something from open source might pay off, but >>>> then you will still have to create a higher tier of management for the >>>> system anyway, so it is a very subtle issue. And what I am finally >>>> starting to understand is that the preparatory work is vital as long >>>> as you have some good AGI conjectures to test when you get there. Jim >>>> Bromer >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:11 AM, John Rose <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Speaking of such, and related: is there a SQL that replaces SQL, does >>>>> anyone >>>>> know? A language like SQL that has its utility and ease of use, >>>>> powerfulness >>>>> and flexibility that is more cognitively oriented? If not, what an >>>>> opportunity exists now contemporarily to promote one. Maybe a language >>>>> that >>>>> emerges from NoSQL databases, but then it looks like SQL is doing that >>>>> :) >>>>> >>>>> I don't know though... >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> >>>>>> The problems I had stepping through the templates were related to the >>>>>> complications of the relations I was using for the AGI part. The >>>>> so-called >>>>>> Concepts used different classes that all used the same templates. When >>>>> used >>>>>> as 'Concepts' I found that there were times when three or more arrays >>>>> (from >>>>>> different classes) were involved in a single operation and as a result >>>>>> I >>>>> there >>>>>> were times I could not figure out which class 'owned' the template that >>>>> was >>>>>> being called. So this was a preliminary AGI issue (if my theories are >>>>> workable). >>>>>> It was really confusing since the operation of one class could be >>>>> dependent on >>>>>> the operation of the others. I could have tracked what I was doing with >>>>>> a >>>>> paper >>>>>> and pencil or something but it was so confusing that I could not even >>>>> remember >>>>>> what the different algorithms were doing. By defining the common >>>>> operations >>>>>> of the arrays as individual classes I should be able to debug >>>>>> complicated >>>>>> interactions of the classes better. And the differentiation of the >>>>> classes is >>>>>> easier to track as well. And finally the debugging representation of >>>>>> the >>>>> stack is >>>>>> more straightforward. You are not supposed to define an operation as a >>>>>> template until you have all the instantiations debugged but my >>>>>> intention >>>>> was to >>>>>> simplify the original design process. It didn't work. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > Well, I guess you have to use joins for larger SQL databases but I >>>>>> > don't define relations. I can't remember what I did to cause the >>>>>> > errors that I first got with Access, but I was still running into SQL >>>>>> > errors the last time I used it and I still have trouble with SQL >>>>>> > helpers. Since some SQL errors are so well known there should be a >>>>>> > SQL compiler or interpreter that can point out the most obvious >>>>>> > mistakes or the language should be changed so that syntax that causes >>>>>> > common beginner's errors should not be allowed without using a >>>>>> > keyword >>>>>> > to designate it. But of course they can't change the basics of the >>>>>> > language because of legacy code. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I would never program with SQL if it wasn't still in vogue for >>>>>> > business operations. - Jim Bromer >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >> When I first started using Access for a business related project 10 >>>>>> >> to 15 years ago I could not understand why I got such bad results on >>>>> most >>>>>> joins. >>>>>> >> It took me months to discover that it was an issue with Database >>>>>> >> programs that were originally designed in the 1970s. I became >>>>>> >> outraged, because, for some reason I had once been familiar with the >>>>>> >> problem. (Perhaps I had tested some ideas in the 1980s and >>>>>> >> discovered >>>>>> >> through reading that the particular error that annoyed me was >>>>>> >> typical >>>>>> >> with that kind of db programming and the discovery that they were >>>>>> >> still using the same thing 20 years later seemed absurd to me.) I >>>>>> >> eventually learned to do some Access and SQL programming but I >>>>>> >> usually use fairly simple commands (I don't use joins in my >>>>>> >> commands) >>>>>> >> and then mix the data in the programs where I have more advanced >>>>>> >> control over the actions. (Of course more complicated commands may >>>>>> >> be used to increase security. But you would only use those for well >>>>>> >> defined and debugged actions.) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> It would be like suggesting that Ben Goertzel's programmers use >>>>>> >> Fortran. (I mean - like - whaaatt?) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I also figured that if I wrote my own database management system I >>>>>> >> could make it much more efficient and that is still probably true. >>>>>> >> On the other hand, since I haven't proven my ideas even in the >>>>>> >> simplest preliminary tests it would have made much more sense to >>>>>> >> start with very simple list management algorithms. Once you learn >>>>>> >> how to save data and retrieve data to a file (it's not getting >>>>>> >> easier) it is probably simplest just to create arrays and save them. >>>>>> >> The only problem is that you then need an index into the lists (as >>>>>> >> well >>>>> as an >>>>>> implicit system of organization of the lists). >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I thought that if I got a basic system working and then put it in >>>>>> >> template form (I don't know if you know C++) then I could just >>>>>> >> implement the individual components of the db management system as >>>>>> >> if >>>>>> >> it were a high level script. However, it took longer than I thought >>>>>> >> and once I started using it on some tests the errors became very >>>>>> >> complicated. I could not get the compiler to give me any idea what >>>>>> >> the values of the data objects of the template algorithms were when >>>>>> >> I >>>>>> >> was in debug mode and I didn't know how to write parallel algorithms >>>>>> >> to display what the values of data were when I stepping through it. >>>>>> >> (I thought about adding a dump as an unused branch and then since >>>>>> >> the >>>>>> >> compiler did step through the template, I could just use set the >>>>>> >> next >>>>>> >> statement but I was burned out by then.) And because you want to >>>>>> >> use >>>>>> >> little variations in the different kinds of lists (to make it more >>>>>> >> efficient) you are going to want to do a lot of differentiation >>>>>> >> anyway. >>>>>> >> (Templates are good when you use data of different types but you >>>>>> >> intend to use the algorithms in the same kind of way with only minor >>>>>> >> variations.) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> So comparing the use of arrays vs using some db management system, I >>>>>> >> would say if you know how to save and retrieve arrays, then use >>>>>> >> them. >>>>>> >> However, since the arrays are probably going to be huge for an AGI >>>>>> >> program you are going to have to distribute them and that means you >>>>>> >> need to use indexes into the arrays that are saved to the file in >>>>>> >> different segments. And you need some indexical information that >>>>>> >> will help you locate some particular objects in large arrays. But I >>>>>> >> would say start with something simple and test some of your ideas >>>>>> >> out >>>>>> >> before you start making the db management system more complicated. >>>>>> >> But I am almost up and running so it would not make sense for me to >>>>>> >> try >>>>> to >>>>>> start over again to try to make it even simpler. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> So I explained why I had absolutely no desire to use SQL and still >>>>>> >> wouldn't but in answering you I reexamined a possible strategy to >>>>>> >> simplify my programming that I might be able to use. Even if I can't >>>>>> >> use this method of simplification in the database management part >>>>>> >> of >>>>>> >> my program since it is mostly written I could use similar strategies >>>>>> >> in the 'conceptual' management systems of the (planned) AGI parts.- >>>>>> >> Jim Bromer >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Piaget Modeler >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Venturing into the Void.... >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> "Umm...why not use MySql or Sql Server or Mongo DB for your object >>>>>> store?" >>>>>> >>> (Some of these are free.) >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> ~PM >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> ----------------------- >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:18:33 -0400 >>>>>> >>> > Subject: [agi] Re: My Relatively Simple AGI Project >>>>>> >>> > From: [email protected] >>>>>> >>> > To: [email protected] >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > 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 >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>> AGI >>>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>>>> RSS Feed: >>>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28 >>>>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> AGI >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae >>> Modify Your Subscription: >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> AGI >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/14050631-7d925eb1 >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: 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
