On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:11:12AM -0700, Stanley Nilsen wrote: > On 01/10/2015 06:57 PM, Logan Streondj wrote: > >On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Stanley Nilsen via AGI wrote: > >>Knowing what is valuable is essential to understanding where the > >>motivation will come from and what is likely to happen (how you > >>write the rules.) > >This sounds to me like a distinction between male and female thinking. > > My thought is that systems provide a way to organize data and > determine what is pertinent and what is not. There must be some
right, so this is that same thinking, "what is inside the box, and what is outside". It is easy for the male brain to seal itself in the box. however that box is still a part of the outside. > organizing principles or our thinking would be like the dreams we yes, organization is good I agree that both kinds of thinking are important. I'm simply saying that we have to take into account both. > > The man was the "bread winner" who spent his days in a competitive > and accountable world. He was constantly having to justify and > > The women used to face a different set of challenges, having many > "chores" to do around the house. Many of these jobs were repetitive that is a fairly amusing 1950's take on it. really our brains developed during the hunter-gatherer stage, where males were primarily hunters and females primarily gatherers. females have larger verbal-linguistic areas since they would spend longer socializing with each other, while they processed the food and other supplies which they had gathered. whereas for males visual-spatial processing was more important, to figure out how to catch up to the gazelle, or spear an antelope. much like a wolf, more was based on symbolic gestures, to avoid alerting the prey to the silent hunting party. If you are interested can read "Leadership and the Sexes", http://www.genderleadership.com/leadership_and_the_sexes.html it has lots of brain research to back everything up. and how it applies to the workplace. > > >The way I see we can do it, is with Speakable Programming for Every > >Language (SPEL). Where people can computer program in a language > >similar to their native language, which can be instantly and > >precisely machine translated to equivalent versions of the languages > >of any other contributors. > > > >This would have to be combined with a culture or ideology of AGI > >development which is family friendly, so that young girls in Ghanna > >could make contributions from their smart phones, while bragging about > >it to their peers and family. > > > >-- > >Logan Streondj > The alternative is to make clever programs that can take what people > write in their own language and extract useful relationships and > facts. > > Stan There are several issues there, including that languages are not used in equally powerful ways, for instance many langauges don't distinguish of and from, or or and either, or clausal-or and noun-or, some do, and the mwak-variant of each language does, but no natural language I've come across, including English, explicitly supports them all. So using the SPEL or mwak-variant allows people to communicate more precisely. Also if you do some basic math, there is a large computing power difference. If you have a clever algorithm, even if you run it on the fastest computer today, you still have ~1 human brains worth of processing. Currently SPEL/mwak supports 18 languages, totaling something like ~4 billion potential users who have a compatible native or learned language. The vast majority of contemporary computer programmers are English speakers, due to a lack of good foreign interoperability. There are about 800 million English speakers, including second language users. There are about 40 million computer programmers in the world, so that is roughly 5% of english speakers are computer programmers. If now we consider that all SPEL/mwak users will be interoperable, and with a potential pool of 4 billion users, with the same adoption rate of 5%, then we have a pool of 200 million computer programmers. Also it may exceed 5% since it is natural language like, and authors may use it for publishing books/blogs, politicians for writing policy, and even people in different regions chatting or other non-programming related things, but still with equal expressive power, and readily accessible to AGI comprehension. -- Logan Streondj ------------------------------------------- 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
