Stephen Reed wrote:
Richard,
I entirely agree with your comments. I would like to eventually stop
programming in Java and have the system do that for me. I am strongly
motivated to build its dialog component first because that addresses the
issue of how to collaborate with the system when the "rough seas" are
encountered.
-Steve
It looks like we are moving in similar directions, then. Half of my
attention at the moment is on the problem of automatic programming, but
I am coming at it from the direction of producing a software development
environment that has as much intelligence as possible built into it.
My line of attack is to look at the "dialog" between the environment (it
is called SAFAIRE - pronounced "sapphire") and the user, and to make the
dialog as non-verbal as possible. Not because I hate language as such,
but because I see language as a poor medium for the human to understand
software systems, and a less-than-perfect way for the human to
communicate their intentions to the system.
Under the hood, SAFAIRE has the AGI design that I am working on. The
work is thus nicely bootstrapped: the problems of learning how to
program, and how to relate to the user, are a good test domain for the
AGI component, and the emerging software development environment is a
good (make that indispensible!) tool for developing the underlying AGI.
One other vital component of the project, which I am having trouble
with, is a [number of hours in the day] generator.....
8-)
Richard Loosemore
----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2008 10:16:34 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Reading on automatic programming?
[snip]
It seems to me that most AP approaches are geared toward the "plain
sailing" problems that do not have the nasty little issues described
above, and that the "rough seas" type of problems are postponed for
another day. Since an awful lot of good work can go into solving plain
sailing systems that are very large (Czarnecki & Eisenecker, for
example), it can seem like good progress is being made. I think what
then happens is that people do not realise that, in order to go on to
the nasty type of programming problem (i.e. 99% of all programming
problems), all the previous work may count for nothing, because it did
not even in principle address such deep issues as what to do if the only
way forward is to find the right textbook, read a couple of pages, and
understand it.
Of course, the same criticism can be levelled at many approaches to the
entire AI problem, never mind just the AP problem. :-)
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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=94228222-d95c02
