Mark Waser wrote:
What have variable names got to do with architecture?
Russell is conflating concept names (a.k.a. symbols) and variables.
Personally, I would just have the system autonumber each concept as the
system generates it and then have some serious resources devoted to
determining and maintaining a set of "friendly names" (which, of course,
depends upon your audience, level of abstraction, etc.) for each concept.
Human readability is a necessity as far as I am concerned; however, as
long as the system can and will accurately convert it's internal
representation (with concept numbers) into an accurate human-readable
form (with "friendly names"), I don't know what more you can possibly
ask for.
Exactly right. I have given some thought to the issue of building
friendly names.
At the high level you can get the system itself to feed its own concepts
through a modified version of the machinery, in its own system, that
would extract a description of the concept.
At lower levels, and earlier stages of development, there could be
diagrams that simply grab the nearby concepts and show their relationships.
The virtue of the architecture I have in mind is that, unlike neural
nets, it does not use distributed representations, which are a pain to
interpret.
All of this is especially important for the Friendliness issue. During
development, we want to monitor whether the system is thinking certain
kinds of pathological thoughts, so we can figure out how the
motivational system is affecting the behavior. For that, we need
automatic triggers that attach to the things we consider bad.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
