Abram,
Would you agree that this thread is analogous to our debate?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Nesov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:49 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Needing many different
features just doesn't look like a natural thing for AI-generated
programs.
No, it doesn't, does it? And then you run into this requirement that
wasn't obvious on day one, and you cater for that, and then you run
into another requirement, that has to be dealt with in a different
way, and then you run into another... and you end up realizing you've
wasted a great deal of irreplaceable time for no good reason
whatsoever.
So I figure I might as well document the mistake, in case it saves
someone having to repeat it.
Well, my point was that maybe the mistake is use of additional
language constructions and not their absence? You yourself should be
able to emulate anything in lambda-calculus (you can add interpreter
for any extension as a part of a program), and so should your AI, if
it's to ever learn open-ended models.
--
Vladimir Nesov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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
