People seem not to read the tutorials... maybe because they don't see the point of doing so?
On Oct 6, 2017 3:10 AM, "Ben Goertzel" <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: > "Modular" and "monolithic" are very general terms. Could you > articulate more precisely the ways in which you think OpenCog is > "monolithic", and in which you think it could be made more "modular"? > > My thinking is: the Atomspace is a distinct module (in its own repo, > it builds separately, etc.), and the various AI processes that can be > used with the Atomspace are also independently buildable and runnable > (MOSES, PLN, the NLP pipeline, ECAN, etc.). Also when we use OpenCog > for robot control, it communicates with other AI tools that are > wrapped up in separate ROS nodes. This already seems pretty modular > to me. So I am wondering what other kind of modularity you are > looking for? > > Regarding Ivan's description > > *** > I was referring to an imaginary system where the whole project would > be a set of modules that work together, connected by well known set of > interfaces. Each module could be modified or forked out in parallel > with the original. It would be up to a user, which sub-forks she/he > would choose to use to run the project, or to base her/his > contribution on. Probably there would be a need for combination > maintainers, something like persons that would choose different > flavors of the project, and would propose their "deejay-combo" to the > public, optimized for this or that use. Sub-fork combinations of low > quality would be avoided, while really useful ones would live on. > *** > > I guess one relevant point is that the different AI tools within > OpenCog can interact in many many different ways. E.g. there is no > single, simple interface for interaction between PLN and MOSES; there > are lots of ways they can interface, conceptually speaking. And > figuring out the best ways for them to interface is a current research > topic... > > In building a particular OpenCog application, one can define specific > interfaces between the various AI components... But for OpenCog as a > general platform, the interactions between the components have to > remain flexible because there are so many interesting ways to do it... > > I think the biggest issue with OpenCog is that we need better > tutorials and documentation. I guess if we had that people would be > able to understand the system better and then would also make more > useful suggestions regarding improving the architecture... > > ben > > > > > > -- Ben > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Mark Nuzz <nuzz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: > > > >> I regret that OpenCog remains so hard to approach. In large part it > >> has evolved this way because the vast bulk of funding that has gone > >> into OpenCog has been oriented toward paying a small group of people > >> to work, in a hurry, on making OpenCog do something specific.... We > >> have not yet had a big chunk of funding dedicated to making it easy to > >> use as a platform. Hopefully that will change soon. > > > > This seems to be a very common theme with projects, especially with > > limited resources. Though OpenCog is unique in the sense that it has > > survived for so long with so many contributors, so the scale/extent at > > which this happened is somewhat larger and therefore require greater > > effort and coordination to really solve. > > > > I'm curious about a few things... > > > > 1) I know you implied this but I wanted to make sure: Do you see the > > goal of an easy-to-use opencog architecture as a high priority item? > > > > 2) Do you think that the specific architecture direction > > (modularization) presented by Ivan is generally the way that this > > should be solved? > > > > 3) Has there been any concrete work in mapping out a specific > > architectural direction to fulfill the goal of making opencog easy to > > use? > > > > 4) Are these decisions that have already been formally agreed upon by > > the governance of the project? Are there any dissenters among the core > > developers, to the extent that it might interfere with such plans if > > executed? > > > > > > I am not quite aware of all the details but I have been trying to keep > > up with all of the discussions lately in this group. Please forgive me > > if I am being too pedantic... My impressions are that funding would be > > easier to come by after these items are figured out in great detail > > and then incorporated as part of a proposal. Such a proposal could > > attract enough of the right unpaid volunteers too, as you know. > > > > > > But yeah, I am not claiming by any means to know even remotely close > > to what Ben knows on this subject. But from my vantage point, I am of > > the opinion that the monolithic architecture is what's slowing > > progress, and not the lack of funding. Suppose you get the funds and > > then you hire the wrong people, then you're even worse off than before > > because you probably wouldn't get another shot at funding for awhile. > > If it were up to me I would have at least one existing core developer > > be involved with this effort full-time, preferably whomever has the > > most knowledge in modular software architectures. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "opencog" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. > > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/opencog/CAMyYmr-T4gevcMh_2mYHko-YwuRcCK6dyBfGZVwYT%2BuizjH6PQ% > 40mail.gmail.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am the > boundary, I am the peak." -- Alexander Scriabin > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "opencog" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/opencog/CACYTDBfVnqsuiJV5MbFu4_1rkKffZESjaVroUmkEUDc1K0cUNw% > 40mail.gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA34tZcpNSA7LaztFFt3rnW10N-db4Z-RFaJMgOMi6Mh%3D2A%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
