Jim,
On 6/22/08, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> A compiler may be a useful tool to use in an advanced AI program (just as
> we all use compilers in our programming), but I don't feel that a compiler
> is a good basis for or a good metaphor for advanced AI.
>
A compiler is just another complicated computer program. The sorts of
methods I described are applicable to ALL complicated programs. I know of no
exceptions.
----------------------------------
> Steve wrote:
> The more complex the software, the better the design must be, and the more
> protected the execution must be. You can NEVER anticipate everything that
> might go into a program, so they must fail ever so softly.
>
> Much of what I have been challenging others on this form for came out of
> the analysis and design of Dr. Eliza. The real world definitely has some
> interesting structure, e.g. the figure 6 shape of cause-and-effect chains,
> and that problems are a phenomenon that exists behind people's eyeballs and
> NOT otherwise in the real world. Ignoring such things and "diving in" and
> hoping that machine intelligence will resolve all (as many/most here seem to
> believe) IMHO is a rookie error that leads nowhere useful.
> Steve Richfield
> -----------------------------------
>
> I don't think that most people in this group think that machine
> intelligence will resolve all the remaining problems in designing artificial
> intelligence, although I have talked to people who feel that way, and the
> lack of discussion about resolving some of the complexity issues does seem
> curious to me.
>
I simply attribute this to rookie error - but many of the people on this
forum are definitely NOT rookies. Hmmm.
Where are they coming from? I don't know. I think most of the people
> feel that once they get their basic programs working, that they will be able
> to figure out the rest on the fly. This method hasn't worked yet, but as I
> mentioned I do think it has something to do with the difficulty of writing
> complicated computer programs. I know that you are one of the outspoken
> critics of faith-based programming,
>
YES - and you said it even better than I have!
so at least there is some consistency in your comments. I mention this
> because, I (seriously) believe that that the Lord may have indicated that my
> algorithm to solve the logical satisfiability problem will work, and if this
> is true, then that may mean that the algorithm may help resolve some lesser
> logical complexity problems.
>
Most of my working career has been as a genuine consultant (and not just an
unemployed programmer). I am typically hired by a major investor. My
specialty is resurrecting projects that are in technological trouble. At the
heart of the most troubled projects. I typically find either a born-again
Christian or a PhD Chemist. These people make the same bad decisions from
faith. The Christian's faith is that God wouldn't lead them SO astray, so
abandoning the project would in effect be abandoning their faith in God -
which of course leads straight to Hell. The Chemist has heard all of the
stories of perseverance leading to breakthrough discoveries, and if you KNOW
that the solution is there just waiting to be found, then just keep on
plugging away. These both lead to projects that stumble on and on long after
any sane person would have found another better way. Christians tend to make
good programmers, but really awful project managers.
> Although we cannot use pure logic to represent knowable knowledge, I
> can use logic to represent theory-like relations between references to
> knowable components of knowledge. (By the way, please note that I did not
> claim that I presently have a polynomial time solution to SAT, and I did not
> say that I was absolutely certain that God pronounced my SAT algorithm to be
> workable.
>
Are you waiting for me to make such a pronouncement?!
I have carefully qualified my statements about this. I would also
> suggest that you think about the fact that we have to use different kinds of
> reasoning with different kinds of questions. Regardless of your own
> beliefs, the topic about the necessity of using different kinds of reasoning
> for different kinds of question is very relevant to discussions about
> advanced AI.)
>
> What do you mean by the figure 6 shape of cause-and-effect chains. It must
> refer to some kind of feedback-like effect.
>
EVERYTHING works by cause and effect - even God's work, because he is
responding to what he sees, and therefore HE is but another link. Where
things are dynamically changing, there is little opportunity to run over to
your computer and inquire about what to do about things you don't like.
However, where things appear to be both stable and undesirable, there is
probably a looped cause-and-effect chain that is at least momentarily
running in a circle. Of course, there must have been a causal
cause-and-effect chain that led to this loop, so drawing the root cause at
the top, a chain that bends do the right and down, and a loop at the bottom,
you have a figure 6.
To cure such problems, you must permanently block at any point the chain
that leads to the loop, and momentarily interrupt the loop at any point.
Note that this necessarily requires TWO different interventions, and that
more often than not there is some choice as to where to block the chains,
providing some choice in potential cures. Often, the root cause is long
gone, but the loop continues.
Your Lord
Steve Richfield
-------------------------------------------
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=106510220-47b225
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
