2008/10/24 Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> But I thought I'd mention that for OpenCog we are planning on a >>> cross-language approach. The core system is C++, for scalability and >>> efficiency reasons, but the MindAgent objects that do the actual AI >>> algorithms should be creatable in various languages, including Scheme or >>> LISP. >> >> *nods* As you know, I'm of the opinion that C++ is literally the worst >> possible choice in this context. However... > > ROTFL. OpenCog is dead-set on reinventing the wheel while developing the > car. > > They may eventually create a better product for doing so -- but many > of us software engineers contend that the car could be more quickly and > easily developed without going that far back (while the OpenCog folk contend > that the current wheel is insufficient).
Perhaps we don't need wheels? Perhaps we need a machine that can retrofit different propulsion systems as an when they are needed.... We don't seem to be getting anywhere of much with wheeled prototypes, towards generality anyway. > (To be clear, the specific "wheels" in this case are things like memory > management, garbage collection, etc. -- all those things that need to be > written in C++ and are baked into more modern languages and platforms). I'd go further back and throw out the dumb VMM, at least eventually. Who wants a robot that while it is catching something you threw to it, pauses for half a second due to it having to move information between hard disk and memory? The whole edifice of most operating system/programming language isn't very suited for real time operation. We have real time kernels and systems to deal with that (which .Net is not one of AFAIK). Although to be fair my throwing out the architecture is not based on the real-time system argument, if you have any sort of experimental self-modifying code, you really want an architecture with vastly more nuanced security capabilities so prevent accidents spreading too far. You can go to a POLA architecture like one of the capability security ones (E, keykos), yet they all require a user to manage security rather than allowing systems to control what the code does. In brief my long term road map: 1) VM with security and real time potential 2) High level languages to make use of the features of the languages 3) Write code to solve problems and rewrite code. We are interested in generality of intelligence, we must be prepared to go back to the roots of generality in computing. AI to me has been a series of premature optimisations. People saying, "I'm going to create a system to solve problem X," with no thought into how a system that solves X can become one that solves Y. There is always a human in the loop to program the next generation, we need to break that cycle to one where the systems can look after themselves. I can't see a way to retrofit current systems to allow them to try out a new kernel and revert to the previous one if the new one is worse and malicious, without a human having to be involved. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- 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
