>> I'm inclined to think that on a semantic level they should also use the same >> internal representation
Hmmm, the dictionary definition of semantic is "of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols" -- which I take to be the *meaning* or *communication* level which certainly can be different from the *working* level. How does what you're saying differ from what I'm saying? >> Sure, for efficiency e.g. vision processing code might want to use vector of >> floats _implementation_, but that should be a compiler flag to be added >> after you've written and profiled a working prototype - the code should be >> written in terms of the logical representation. Uh huh. So your vision processing "code" is something like a description which then compiles down to the most efficient implementation. Sounds to me like a descriptive communication level with a magical compiler that translates it to a machine-code internal representation. >> I think if you start actually designing each module around a hand-tweaked >> internal representation, you'll end up spending your whole life on one >> narrow AI application I think that if I convince someone/everybody else to throw a standard communication layer on top of *their* hand-tweaked internal representation, I'll do just fine, thank you very much. >> The trick is to get to the next level of productivity, and I think using a >> consistent across-the-board logical representation Yes. And I'm pushing for that at the *communication* level (where it clearly is possible) instead of at the *internal working* level (where I contend that it is clearly *not* possible -- or, at least, not feasible). >> I'm skeptical, but it's hard to be sure of a "can't", so if you want to go >> that route - then go ahead and prove me wrong. Which is what I'm working towards. But how are *you* progressing on converging on a canonical format? Do you believe that logical representation is sufficient for describing vision processing well enough that a compiler can then create functioning vision code? ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Wallace To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Logical representation On 3/13/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do the many modules have to have one canonical format for representing content -- or do they have to have one canonical format for *communicating* content? I think that you need to resign yourself to the fact that many of the modules are going to have *very* different internal representations. I'm inclined to think that on a semantic level they should also use the same internal representation. Sure, for efficiency e.g. vision processing code might want to use vector of floats _implementation_, but that should be a compiler flag to be added after you've written and profiled a working prototype - the code should be written in terms of the logical representation. I think if you start actually designing each module around a hand-tweaked internal representation, you'll end up spending your whole life on one narrow AI application. This isn't just theory - spending one's whole life on one narrow AI application is exactly what people currently do. The trick is to get to the next level of productivity, and I think using a consistent across-the-board logical representation is a key part of that. The brain co-evolved with language. I suspect that the easiest minimal canonical communicating format is going to be something pretty close to an even more rigorously syntactically defined Simple English ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia). I'm skeptical, but it's hard to be sure of a "can't", so if you want to go that route - then go ahead and prove me wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ----- 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
