Hi Matt, As perhaps you know, I want to organize Texai as a vast multitude of agents situated in a hierarchical control system, grouped as possibly redundant, load-sharing, agents within an agency sharing a specific mission. I have given some thought to the message content, and assuming that my bootstrap English dialog effort actually works, then English language as an Agent Control Language vocabulary becomes possible at the more deliberative, higher levels of the hierarchy, when the duration of NL parsing and generation is small compared to the overall task duration.
I am still some ways away from tackling this implementation, but I believe that the issues you raise are pertainent to what I plan. For example, I have spent a bit of time trying to figure out how to construct a scalable peer-to-peer network. I think that I'll use Jabber as the way for high-level agents to talk to one another and the N2N protocol (not actually evaluated yet) or some other NAT hole-punching technique for low-overhead, direct agent-to-agent communication. For the non-specialists among you, what I am referring to is the fact that Internet Service Providers subvert the original intent of the net, which was easy peer-to-peer services, with a client-server paradigm in which end-users cannot easily become service providers. NAT hole punching is a clever way to change an end-user client into a server so that two end-users can directly communicate even though they do not have public Internet addresses. Matt (or anyone else), have you gotten as far as thinking about NAT hole punching or some other solution for peer-to-peer? Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 ----- Original Message ---- From: Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 12:47:45 PM Subject: Re: [agi] organising parallel processes --- rooftop8000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi, > I have a lot of parallel processes that are in control of their own > activation (they can decide which processes are activated and for how > long). I need some kind of organisation (a simple example would be a > hierarchy of processes that only activate downwards). > > I'm looking for examples of possible organisations or hierarchies in > existing AI systems or designs of them . Any ideas? > thanks I proposed competitive message routing (CMR) as a way to organize lots of autonomous narrow AI to form AGI. The idea is that specialists communicate in natural language (understanding only messages relevant to their narrow domains) and route messages outside their specialty to other agents that it knows are more closely related. This could be done by simple term matching, although there is an economic incentive for agents to match the "meanings" of messages more intelligently, such as matching words to images. I have so far only investigated its scalability in a very abstract form. Building a working model would be very expensive. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html (Most people on this list have already seen this). -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
