On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:41:23AM +0000, Ian Clarke spake thusly: > When and who "scoffed"? Quotes please. I was carefully picking through > the NGR code and encouraging others to do-so. The scientific method is > to conduct an experiment, and see whether things improve. To the extent > a scientific method can reasonably be followed with Freenet, it is.
toad, last week I think. I don't have the IRC logs hanging around. > By that argument almost none of non-symbolic AI would work since > frequently it finds solutions to problems which are extremely difficult > for people to decipher. But people understand how those things work and they know what they are supposed to do and they usually know when they are actually working. There is code in freenet which actively promotes specialization and which routes to other nodes based on their specialization betting that the chances of that node having the data are greater than others. That stuff does not yet seem to be working. Don't get me wrong, I'm patient and I know this stuff is hard. I just don't want anyone to think freenet meets expectations for a functioning network. :) > Can you find information in a scalable manner? Lets, for the sake of > argument, assume you can. What is the CHK of the information at the > center of your specialization? You almost confused me a second time because I was about to pull up my datastore histogram. You asked me this question on IRC once. I'll tell you the same thing I told you then: Linux is the "CHK" or "key" of the information at the center of my specialization. Logistics and aircraft maintenance is the CHK of my fathers. Networking is the CHK of my roommates. I know what they specialize in and I route to them appropriately when I need something in that area. If nobody specialized in anything in the real world we would have problems. > You obviously aren't very familiar with non-symbolic AI. Examples would > include anything that relies on a neural network (such as those that > analyze your credit card transactions to spot fraud), or a genetic > algorithm. No, I'm not. But I bet that when people write code for non-symbolic AI they know how the code is supposed to work and what the end result should look like. The credit card company expects their code to actually find fraud. If it didn't appear to turn up fraud and the programmer said, "Oh, this is just non-obvious fraud" he wouldn't be taken very seriously. :) -- Tracy Reed http://copilotconsulting.com
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
