On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd write it in a separate language, developed for human programmers, > but keep the language with which AI interacts minimalistic, to > understand how it's supposed to grow, and not be burdened by technical > details in the core algorithm or fooled by appearance of functionality > where there is none but a simple combination of sufficiently > expressive primitives. Open-ended learning should be open-ended from > the start. It's a general argument of course, but you need specifics > to fight it.
Okay, I'll repeat the specific example from earlier; how would you handle it following your strategy? Example: you want the AI to generate code to meet a spec, which you provided in the form of a fitness function. If the problem isn't trivial and you don't have a million years to spare, you want the AI to read and understand the spec so it can produce code targeted to meet it, rather than rely on random trial and error. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
