Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/7/07, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One goal or project I was considering (for profit) is a research tool, basically a KB that scans in teh newspapers and articles and extracts pertinent information for others to query against and use. This would help build up a large world knowledge base, and would also be salable to research companies and such. One example of that is the tragedy shooting at VT this past month, I ran some scritps against the news article and came up with a lot of hidden information in there about the Chu guys family and some other conenctions that I wasnt seeing in many of the news articles, that let me go down some other paths to find info. Another goal or application was a 3D avatar bot like Novamente is now pursuing. This could be used most easily to simulate an autonomous AGI agent that could act in a 3d rich world. I think web page classification is a good first goal for AGI. Though there may be competition from other newer search engines such as PowerSet. For the 3D avatar, it seems very difficult to commercialize (but I may be ignorant of areas like gaming or Second Life). Web Page Classification is more of a narrow AI focus and can be accomplished well using statistical language techniques known, and can be improved upon, but doenst really need an AGI level A 3D agent would be hard to commercilize, though Second Life would have possibilities, and something like working with the World of Warcraft gamers.. though the business hurdles there would be frustrating. The 3D agent would give a much wider range of playing with true AGi though. James Ratcliff - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
--- Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Iddo Lev has a more practical answer: http://www.stanford.edu/~iddolev/pulc/current_work.html Just looking at it briefly, it appears to clearly present the many problems with natural language understanding (i.e. various forms of ambiguity). Then it addresses these problems with a huge, complicated set of language rules that have to be hand coded. Am I correct? If so, this approach is not really new. I would be interested in models that can learn language rules from unlabeled text. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
Are there any projects that allow people to help? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
This work is a progress along a clearly stated line of research. It is about ways of managing ambiguity. The dissertation is not about a complete AGI system, it does not go into machine learning. It is not about discovering meaning, but analysing meaning: the interpretation of output is fully specified by a concrete application of the system (I would call this a symbolic approach). On 5/8/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Iddo Lev has a more practical answer: http://www.stanford.edu/~iddolev/pulc/current_work.html Just looking at it briefly, it appears to clearly present the many problems with natural language understanding (i.e. various forms of ambiguity). Then it addresses these problems with a huge, complicated set of language rules that have to be hand coded. Am I correct? If so, this approach is not really new. I would be interested in models that can learn language rules from unlabeled text. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
Personally, I found the dissertation highly enlightening and helpful. Yes, it addresses ambiguity problems with rules (though I debate both of Matt's descriptors -- the term huge and the term complicated) without specifying how these rules might be machine-learned -- but doing so is still a tremendously useful first step. Further, I think that requiring a model that learns *all* language rules from unlabeled text (and starting from scratch) is making the problem far harder than it needs to be. You didn't do that as a child so why should you insist upon it for a system? Thank you very much for the reference, Lukasz! Mark - Original Message - From: Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:57 PM Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project? This work is a progress along a clearly stated line of research. It is about ways of managing ambiguity. The dissertation is not about a complete AGI system, it does not go into machine learning. It is not about discovering meaning, but analysing meaning: the interpretation of output is fully specified by a concrete application of the system (I would call this a symbolic approach). On 5/8/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Iddo Lev has a more practical answer: http://www.stanford.edu/~iddolev/pulc/current_work.html Just looking at it briefly, it appears to clearly present the many problems with natural language understanding (i.e. various forms of ambiguity). Then it addresses these problems with a huge, complicated set of language rules that have to be hand coded. Am I correct? If so, this approach is not really new. I would be interested in models that can learn language rules from unlabeled text. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
You are welcome. Indeed, I was tempted to keep it for myself ;-) As for learning rules, I guess you know the work http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/605753.html or similar. In practical contexts, it must be integrated with learning the semantical lexicon (e.g., feature structures), and thus, the ontology. On 5/8/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I found the dissertation highly enlightening and helpful. Yes, it addresses ambiguity problems with rules (though I debate both of Matt's descriptors -- the term huge and the term complicated) without specifying how these rules might be machine-learned -- but doing so is still a tremendously useful first step. Further, I think that requiring a model that learns *all* language rules from unlabeled text (and starting from scratch) is making the problem far harder than it needs to be. You didn't do that as a child so why should you insist upon it for a system? Thank you very much for the reference, Lukasz! Mark - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
You are welcome. Indeed, I was tempted to keep it for myself ;-) Please. DON'T!:-) As for learning rules, I guess you know the work http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/605753.html or similar. In practical contexts, it must be integrated with learning the semantical lexicon (e.g., feature structures), and thus, the ontology. Yup. That's what I'm trying to do. - Original Message - From: Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:25 PM Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project? You are welcome. Indeed, I was tempted to keep it for myself ;-) As for learning rules, I guess you know the work http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/605753.html or similar. In practical contexts, it must be integrated with learning the semantical lexicon (e.g., feature structures), and thus, the ontology. On 5/8/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I found the dissertation highly enlightening and helpful. Yes, it addresses ambiguity problems with rules (though I debate both of Matt's descriptors -- the term huge and the term complicated) without specifying how these rules might be machine-learned -- but doing so is still a tremendously useful first step. Further, I think that requiring a model that learns *all* language rules from unlabeled text (and starting from scratch) is making the problem far harder than it needs to be. You didn't do that as a child so why should you insist upon it for a system? Thank you very much for the reference, Lukasz! Mark - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
Interesting question you raise there, Matt (vs :) YKY How many of us would be prepared to work FULL-TIME on AGI: (0) If a department of defense/military organisation paid you develop a secret AGI for national defense/intelligence purpose? (1) If a Microsoft, Google, Sun or IBM came along and hired you full-time to work on either (1a) Open-Source; or (1b) Proprietary AGI? (2) A more 'friendly' research group came along (e.g. University, government agency) to pay you fulltime (2a) on *their* design/architecture or (2b) on YOUR design but having to share your findings with the larger community (shared credit)? (3) If you had sufficient funds of your own? Re (3) I have often wondered how much time one could really spend continuously on working on AGI - refer to the Princeton Instititue of Advanced Studies where established geniuses (such as Einstein) were/are paid to devote fulltime efforts to thinking but actually not many earthshaking ideas have come out of it. Don't we need a lot of 'time wasted' on trivia such as a real job, leaking plumbing and family in order to have these 1 or 2 hours of creative thinking/work each day? Would it help to have consolidated 8 hour or longer blocks each day? Do people like Ben, Leitz and Peter (Voss) really have so much time to think creatively/design or is my suspicion right that a lot of their (your :) time is spent on fundraising, PR, communication, management? The grass always seems greener on the other side... Jean-Paul Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007/05/07 03:47:28 I think we should not go FOSS just because we arn't confident of ourselves, or to try to avoid competition. We love our work and should go the extra miles to make it profitable. Those who're not interested in business matters can leave that to somebody else in the group. The problem with closed source is you have to pay your employees. Personally, I am not interested in making a lot of money. I already make enough to buy what I want. It is more important to have free time to pursue my interests. AGI, especially language, is one of my interests. But I don't want to build something aimlessly like Cyc. I would like to see an application, a goal in which progress can be measured. I currently use text compression for this purpose. Do you have a better idea? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Time Enough For Work [WAS Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?]
Myself, I think that the number of hours working alone might only need to be a small number (3-4). But what I value most is hours brainstorming with others who are of like mind and similar level of knowledge. That is a gold-dust situation. I have been watching From The Earth To The Moon recently. Oh to be part of a 100,000-strong community working on one noble project! Richard Loosemore. Jean-Paul Van Belle wrote: Interesting question you raise there, Matt (vs :) YKY How many of us would be prepared to work FULL-TIME on AGI: (0) If a department of defense/military organisation paid you develop a secret AGI for national defense/intelligence purpose? (1) If a Microsoft, Google, Sun or IBM came along and hired you full-time to work on either (1a) Open-Source; or (1b) Proprietary AGI? (2) A more 'friendly' research group came along (e.g. University, government agency) to pay you fulltime (2a) on *their* design/architecture or (2b) on YOUR design but having to share your findings with the larger community (shared credit)? (3) If you had sufficient funds of your own? Re (3) I have often wondered how much time one could really spend continuously on working on AGI - refer to the Princeton Instititue of Advanced Studies where established geniuses (such as Einstein) were/are paid to devote fulltime efforts to thinking but actually not many earthshaking ideas have come out of it. Don't we need a lot of 'time wasted' on trivia such as a real job, leaking plumbing and family in order to have these 1 or 2 hours of creative thinking/work each day? Would it help to have consolidated 8 hour or longer blocks each day? Do people like Ben, Leitz and Peter (Voss) really have so much time to think creatively/design or is my suspicion right that a lot of their (your :) time is spent on fundraising, PR, communication, management? The grass always seems greener on the other side... Jean-Paul - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
RE: Time Enough For Work [WAS Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?]
I've found that if I can do 16 to 24 hours on, and then sleep, and then another 16 to 24 hours on as long as the body can keep up I can reach really high thresholds of productivity with ephemeral visions of deep, comprehensive insight. In the past I've done self-directed data compression RD, written video games, telephony switching software in this way on up to 2 year stints. 8 hours is just warming up. And the concept of the Long Day Society I've kicked about for years where the day I think is too short at 24 hours. Stretching the wake sleep cycle could help us live longer But the software I'm working on (WKG - Web Knowledge Gatherer) is pre-AGI and at some point will need to grow a brain :) so reading all these discussions and interactions especially among the more astute and learned individuals on this email list is very informative gives perspective on some of the RD that is going on. And any posts and references on good learning material and books are helpful. I've just started reading The Symbolic Species by Terrence W. Deacon which has sat on my shelf for years :) and is a little outdated I suppose but has some good information and provides some examples examining the human brain but ... brain and computer software s different and the brain is such a conglomerated mish-mash of evolutionary cognitive appendages! It's almost like OK need to start from scratch when building AGI like when software becomes fragile, rigid, brittle, and rots (as Agile design tries to avoid). If the brain could be decompiled, which I'm sure we are getting closer, how much of it would really be useful for AGI? Would the source code be too messy and spaghetti like? Are there any algorithms and data structures that haven't been discovered in mathematics? And modeling AGI after brain... maybe loosely. Do we model machines after human body design, some yes but others not, say an army tank is in some ways like a human body but it more accommodates humans (and disaccommodates) than is modeled after. The decompiled brain source code would have some really amazing undiscovered stuff in there. Maybe it couldn't be represented with conventional programming languages. I wonder... parts of it would be immensely sophisticated yes that's a de facto assumption :). And it could be decompiled at many levels. I suppose a functional level, macroscopic decompiler could be made now there are probably many in existence... John -Original Message- From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:58 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Time Enough For Work [WAS Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?] Myself, I think that the number of hours working alone might only need to be a small number (3-4). But what I value most is hours brainstorming with others who are of like mind and similar level of knowledge. That is a gold-dust situation. I have been watching From The Earth To The Moon recently. Oh to be part of a 100,000-strong community working on one noble project! Richard Loosemore. Jean-Paul Van Belle wrote: Interesting question you raise there, Matt (vs :) YKY How many of us would be prepared to work FULL-TIME on AGI: (0) If a department of defense/military organisation paid you develop a secret AGI for national defense/intelligence purpose? (1) If a Microsoft, Google, Sun or IBM came along and hired you full-time to work on either (1a) Open-Source; or (1b) Proprietary AGI? (2) A more 'friendly' research group came along (e.g. University, government agency) to pay you fulltime (2a) on *their* design/architecture or (2b) on YOUR design but having to share your findings with the larger community (shared credit)? (3) If you had sufficient funds of your own? Re (3) I have often wondered how much time one could really spend continuously on working on AGI - refer to the Princeton Instititue of Advanced Studies where established geniuses (such as Einstein) were/are paid to devote fulltime efforts to thinking but actually not many earthshaking ideas have come out of it. Don't we need a lot of 'time wasted' on trivia such as a real job, leaking plumbing and family in order to have these 1 or 2 hours of creative thinking/work each day? Would it help to have consolidated 8 hour or longer blocks each day? Do people like Ben, Leitz and Peter (Voss) really have so much time to think creatively/design or is my suspicion right that a lot of their (your :) time is spent on fundraising, PR, communication, management? The grass always seems greener on the other side... Jean-Paul - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: Time Enough For Work [WAS Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?]
Re (3) I have often wondered how much time one could really spend continuously on working on AGI - refer to the Princeton Instititue of Advanced Studies where established geniuses (such as Einstein) were/are paid to devote fulltime efforts to thinking but actually not many earthshaking ideas have come out of it. Don't we need a lot of 'time wasted' on trivia such as a real job, leaking plumbing and family in order to have these 1 or 2 hours of creative thinking/work each day? Would it help to have consolidated 8 hour or longer blocks each day? Do people like Ben, Leitz and Peter (Voss) really have so much time to think creatively/design or is my suspicion right that a lot of their (your :) time is spent on fundraising, PR, communication, management? I think I personally spend about 30 hours/week actively focused on AGI, these days. However, the rest of my work time is spent doing activities that help bring in the $$ that pays other members of the Novamente team to work on AGI. We do have several team members working full-time on AGI RD. My total work time is probably about 65 hours a week all total, on average, though of course for much of the remainder of the week my mind is still churning about AGI and other related scientific and technology issues! I would of course like to see things shift so that I could spend, say, 50 instead of 30 hours per week on AGI directly. But as things are now, I am the business leader of Novamente LLC as well as the head AGI guru. -- Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On 5/7/07, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One goal or project I was considering (for profit) is a research tool, basically a KB that scans in teh newspapers and articles and extracts pertinent information for others to query against and use. This would help build up a large world knowledge base, and would also be salable to research companies and such. One example of that is the tragedy shooting at VT this past month, I ran some scritps against the news article and came up with a lot of hidden information in there about the Chu guys family and some other conenctions that I wasnt seeing in many of the news articles, that let me go down some other paths to find info. Another goal or application was a 3D avatar bot like Novamente is now pursuing. This could be used most easily to simulate an autonomous AGI agent that could act in a 3d rich world. I think web page classification is a good first goal for AGI. Though there may be competition from other newer search engines such as PowerSet. For the 3D avatar, it seems very difficult to commercialize (but I may be ignorant of areas like gaming or Second Life). YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: Time Enough For Work [WAS Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?]
Ben is about the most productive and energetic AGI person I've seen =) Personally I think I'm better at theorizing than software development, and my work/sleep hours are so irregular that I can't keep account of them, except to say that I'm devoted to AGI full-time. BTW.. I think churning code efficiently is a skill that is complementary to mine, and is not meant to be derogatory. AGI probably requires many different personalities working together. YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On Saturday 05 May 2007 23:29, Matt Mahoney wrote: About programming languages. I do most of my programming in C++ with a little bit of assembler. AGI needs some heavy duty number crunching. You really need assembler to do most any kind of vector processing, especially if you use a coprocessor like a graphics card or PS3 type hardware. You can get hundreds of GFlops for a few hundred dollars now, so why not use it? Look at Brook (http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/brookgpu/) ... and GPGPU in general (http://www.gpgpu.org/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi). If you want to use the built-in SIMD instructions in the X8x architecture, there are versions of BLAS that support them: both AMD and Intel have native versions for download, and there is ATLAS (http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/), FFTW (http://www.fftw.org/), and many similar packages of functions -- there is also libSIMDx86 (http://sourceforge.net/projects/simdx86/) for general purpose vector and matrix processing. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
One goal or project I was considering (for profit) is a research tool, basically a KB that scans in teh newspapers and articles and extracts pertinent information for others to query against and use. This would help build up a large world knowledge base, and would also be salable to research companies and such. One example of that is the tragedy shooting at VT this past month, I ran some scritps against the news article and came up with a lot of hidden information in there about the Chu guys family and some other conenctions that I wasnt seeing in many of the news articles, that let me go down some other paths to find info. Another goal or application was a 3D avatar bot like Novamente is now pursuing. This could be used most easily to simulate an autonomous AGI agent that could act in a 3d rich world. James Ratcliff Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About business. Do you have any specific project goals? Something that might bring in money in the next 3-5 years? It is OK with me if our goal is to build something and give it away. A lot of people have made money that way. Look at Linux. I gave away my PAQ compressor and I've gotten 3 consulting jobs as a result, not counting work I turned down, and I never even looked for work. I just don't want to make the same mistake as Cyc and build something that nobody can use. I know AGI has lots of potential applications, but how are we going to show that our AGI is better than our competition? --- YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote: Hi =) I already have a project going on.. but it's still in the planning stage. The main difficulty is finding people who agree in the main about the basic theory. About my project: 1. Has to be for-profit, but openness is good. Also it'd be quite different from conventional companies in that the project is owned by all partners and decisions are made by voting. 2. Knowledge representation is basically FOPL, perhaps with probabilities / fuzziness. This rules out scruffie AI folks, sorry. Everyone knows that intelligence entails a lot of things (eg vision), but I believe there should be a core that is based on a uniform representation. Guess it's better to skip the scruffie vs neat debate, and simply let people coalesce to different projects. These 2 are the most important criteria. I tend to prefer partners with a more theoretical slant, rather than churning out code at high speed. Some minor points: a) language -- unimportant. I think I'll use Lisp for initial development, then switch to probably C# or Java. It's so difficult to find the right minds that language should not be a cause of disagreement at all. The entire project doesn't need to be in same language, but I also believe that it would not be colossal in size. b) reflection -- source-level reflection is not needed for a basically declarative AGI. Note that this doesn't mean my AGI would not be able to program itself eventually. c) well-documented, sure. d) chat room: I say let's start a chat room for AGI in general. I have started one on freenode.net, channel = #General-Intelligence (for some reason the names #AGI and #GI were taken). e) I'd like to be able to say everyone can do their own thing but there should be some structure that people can agree to, which I think is the KR. Cheers! ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/6/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YKY, what do you mean by scruffie? Is that anyone who doesn't think FOPL should be the core of an AGI? Scruffies tend to think AGI consists of a large number of heterogeneous modules. Let's try to avoid this debate by saying we'll build as many modules as we see fit. Now FOPL is not the only KR language out there, but anyone can be reasonably familiar with it so it can serve as a foundational framework. If we are to agree on a KR scheme, it should be one that can be explained in 15 minutes. I don't think there is an elegant solution to AGI. First, people have been working on this for a long time, and if there was a simple solution we likely would have found it. Second, the complexity of AGI, prior to any training, is bounded by the complexity of DNA, which is quite high. Consider the complexity of programming a robot spider to weave webs, not by training, but by writing the algorithm yourself. Spiders are born with this knowledge. Then consider the complexity of a human brain compared to that of a spider. As for FOPL or probabilistic FOPL (for most x, p(x) is usually true, formalized with numeric probabilities), people have been down this path many times and it is a dead end. What theoretical insight do you have that would lead me to believe that your system would succeed where others have failed? I used to be pretty good at C and assembler hacking =) but we definitely should not worry about hardware at *this stage*. We should first focus on the algorithms. We need to keep in mind that the current version requires 10^15 bits of memory and 10^16 operations per second. Why would we evolve such large brains if there was a shortcut? I think we should not go FOSS just because we arn't confident of ourselves, or to try to avoid competition. We love our work and should go the extra miles to make it profitable. Those who're not interested in business matters can leave that to somebody else in the group. The problem with closed source is you have to pay your employees. Personally, I am not interested in making a lot of money. I already make enough to buy what I want. It is more important to have free time to pursue my interests. AGI, especially language, is one of my interests. But I don't want to build something aimlessly like Cyc. I would like to see an application, a goal in which progress can be measured. I currently use text compression for this purpose. Do you have a better idea? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
Hi =) I already have a project going on.. but it's still in the planning stage. The main difficulty is finding people who agree in the main about the basic theory. About my project: 1. Has to be for-profit, but openness is good. Also it'd be quite different from conventional companies in that the project is owned by all partners and decisions are made by voting. 2. Knowledge representation is basically FOPL, perhaps with probabilities / fuzziness. This rules out scruffie AI folks, sorry. Everyone knows that intelligence entails a lot of things (eg vision), but I believe there should be a core that is based on a uniform representation. Guess it's better to skip the scruffie vs neat debate, and simply let people coalesce to different projects. These 2 are the most important criteria. I tend to prefer partners with a more theoretical slant, rather than churning out code at high speed. Some minor points: a) language -- unimportant. I think I'll use Lisp for initial development, then switch to probably C# or Java. It's so difficult to find the right minds that language should not be a cause of disagreement at all. The entire project doesn't need to be in same language, but I also believe that it would not be colossal in size. b) reflection -- source-level reflection is not needed for a basically declarative AGI. Note that this doesn't mean my AGI would not be able to program itself eventually. c) well-documented, sure. d) chat room: I say let's start a chat room for AGI in general. I have started one on freenode.net, channel = #General-Intelligence (for some reason the names #AGI and #GI were taken). e) I'd like to be able to say everyone can do their own thing but there should be some structure that people can agree to, which I think is the KR. Cheers! YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
PS: Sorry I came off as rather arrogant in the last mail. I'm trying very hard to recruit people and certainly I don't want to offend anyone. =] Forget about scruffie vs neat. What I'm trying to say is, *it would be very hard for people to work together unless they agree on a common KR*. That's all I'm saying. The second point is: *it'd be very hard for for-profit people to work together with not-for-profit people*. Other than that, I'd try to be as open-minded as possible. YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On 5/3/07, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) The theory not completely divorced from brains It doesn't have to describe everything about human brains, but you can see how roughly a similar sort of system to it may be running in the human brain and can account for things such as motivation, neural plasticity. My focus is on truth maintenance, but I agree that the AGI should have motivations and plasticity (in the form of machine learning, not exactly neural network). 2) It takes some note of theoretical computer science So nothing that ignores limits to collecting information from the environment or promises unlimited bug free creation/alteration of programming. Certainly. 3) A reason why it is different from normal computers/programs How it deals with meaning and other things. If it could explain conciousness in some fashion, I would have to abandon my own theories as well. 1. I'd define consciousness := self-awareness := a self-reflexive representation in the KB. So a thermostat is not conscious because it's not *aware* of what it's performing. 2. Consciousness is not central to AGI unless you want to make it sentient, by which I mean having its own emotions. Why would someone want that? 3. The lack of consciousness does not prevent the AGI to have robust knowledge of human values. That's what's needed for an AGI to be an aide to humans. YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
YKY, what do you mean by scruffie? Is that anyone who doesn't think FOPL should be the core of an AGI? About programming languages. I do most of my programming in C++ with a little bit of assembler. AGI needs some heavy duty number crunching. You really need assembler to do most any kind of vector processing, especially if you use a coprocessor like a graphics card or PS3 type hardware. You can get hundreds of GFlops for a few hundred dollars now, so why not use it? About business. Do you have any specific project goals? Something that might bring in money in the next 3-5 years? It is OK with me if our goal is to build something and give it away. A lot of people have made money that way. Look at Linux. I gave away my PAQ compressor and I've gotten 3 consulting jobs as a result, not counting work I turned down, and I never even looked for work. I just don't want to make the same mistake as Cyc and build something that nobody can use. I know AGI has lots of potential applications, but how are we going to show that our AGI is better than our competition? --- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi =) I already have a project going on.. but it's still in the planning stage. The main difficulty is finding people who agree in the main about the basic theory. About my project: 1. Has to be for-profit, but openness is good. Also it'd be quite different from conventional companies in that the project is owned by all partners and decisions are made by voting. 2. Knowledge representation is basically FOPL, perhaps with probabilities / fuzziness. This rules out scruffie AI folks, sorry. Everyone knows that intelligence entails a lot of things (eg vision), but I believe there should be a core that is based on a uniform representation. Guess it's better to skip the scruffie vs neat debate, and simply let people coalesce to different projects. These 2 are the most important criteria. I tend to prefer partners with a more theoretical slant, rather than churning out code at high speed. Some minor points: a) language -- unimportant. I think I'll use Lisp for initial development, then switch to probably C# or Java. It's so difficult to find the right minds that language should not be a cause of disagreement at all. The entire project doesn't need to be in same language, but I also believe that it would not be colossal in size. b) reflection -- source-level reflection is not needed for a basically declarative AGI. Note that this doesn't mean my AGI would not be able to program itself eventually. c) well-documented, sure. d) chat room: I say let's start a chat room for AGI in general. I have started one on freenode.net, channel = #General-Intelligence (for some reason the names #AGI and #GI were taken). e) I'd like to be able to say everyone can do their own thing but there should be some structure that people can agree to, which I think is the KR. Cheers! YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On 5/6/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YKY, what do you mean by scruffie? Is that anyone who doesn't think FOPL should be the core of an AGI? Scruffies tend to think AGI consists of a large number of heterogeneous modules. Let's try to avoid this debate by saying we'll build as many modules as we see fit. Now FOPL is not the only KR language out there, but anyone can be reasonably familiar with it so it can serve as a foundational framework. If we are to agree on a KR scheme, it should be one that can be explained in 15 minutes. About programming languages. I do most of my programming in C++ with a little bit of assembler. AGI needs some heavy duty number crunching. You really need assembler to do most any kind of vector processing, especially if you use a coprocessor like a graphics card or PS3 type hardware. You can get hundreds of GFlops for a few hundred dollars now, so why not use it? I used to be pretty good at C and assembler hacking =) but we definitely should not worry about hardware at *this stage*. We should first focus on the algorithms. About business. Do you have any specific project goals? Something that might bring in money in the next 3-5 years? It is OK with me if our goal is to build something and give it away. A lot of people have made money that way. Look at Linux. I gave away my PAQ compressor and I've gotten 3 consulting jobs as a result, not counting work I turned down, and I never even looked for work. I just don't want to make the same mistake as Cyc and build something that nobody can use. I know AGI has lots of potential applications, but how are we going to show that our AGI is better than our competition? I think we should not go FOSS just because we arn't confident of ourselves, or to try to avoid competition. We love our work and should go the extra miles to make it profitable. Those who're not interested in business matters can leave that to somebody else in the group. A few things have changed since Cyc's start: we have more people working on AGI now; we have the Web; better understanding of many algorithms (eg machine learning, belief revision, probabilistic logic); much better PC hardware; (can someone think of more?) How we can be better than the competition: 1. we focus on AGI, unlike eg, Google on search engine or M$ on the OS and infrastructure 2. as a startup we can experiment on new forms of organization, be more open, innovative, etc 3. our payoff would also be better than if we worked at the major companies 4. capital resource is less important than human resource This talk about tech startups is pretty inspiring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6hoPw5hItY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project? 1) A reasonable point of entry into the project 2) The project would need to be FOSS, or at least communally owned. (FOSS for preference.) I've had a few bad experiences where the project leader ended up taking everything, and don't intend to have another. 3) The project would need to be adopting a multiplex approach. I don't believe in single solutions. AI needs to represent things in multiple ways, and to deal with those ways in quasi-independent channels. My general separation is: Goals (desired end states), Desires (desired next states), Models, and logic. I recognize that everything is addressed by a mixture of these approaches...but people seem to use VERY different mixtures (both from person to person and in the same person from situation to situation). 4) I'd need to have a belief that the project had a sparkplug. Otherwise I might as well keep fumbling around on my own. Projects need someone to inspire the troops. 5) There would need to be some way to communicate with the others on the project that didn't involve going to a restaurant. (I'm on a diet, and going to restaurants frequently is a really BAD idea.) (N.B.: One project I briefly joined had a chat list...which might have worked well if it had actually been the means of communication. Turned out that the inner circle met frequently at a restaurant and rarely visited the chat room. But I think a mailing list or a newsgroup is a better choice anyway. [The project was successful, but I think that the members on the chat group were mainly a diversion from the actual work of the project.]) 6) Things would need to be reasonably documented. This comes in lots of forms, but for a work in progress there's a lot to be said for comments inserted into the code itself, and automatically extracted to create documentation. (Otherwise I prefer the form that Python uses...but nobody else does that as well.) 7) LANGUAGES: Using a language that I felt not completely unsuitable. After LOTS of searching I've more or less settled on Java as the only wide-spread language with decent library support that can run distributed systems with reasonable efficiency. There are many other contenders (e.g., C, C++, Fortran, Alice, Erlang, and D each have their points), and I don't really *like* Java, but Java, C, and C++ appear to be the only widely used languages that have the ability to run across a multi-processor with reasonable efficiency. (And even there the techniques used can hardly be called widespread.) 7a) Actually C and C++ can be suitable if there are appropriate libraries to handle such things as garbage collection, and protocols for how to save persistent data and then remember it later. But I still don't like the way they make free use of wild pointers. 7b) I wonder to what extent the entire project needs to be in the same language. This does make understanding things easier, as long as it's small enough that someone can understand everything at a low level, or if the entity should ever want to understand itself. But there are plausible arguments for writing things in a rapid development language, such as Python or Ruby, and then only translating the routines that later need to be translated for efficiency. (If only those languages could execute across multiple processors!) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
--- Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Speagram language framework allows programming in a natural language like idiom http://www.speagram.org/ IMO this is a fascinating and worthwhile experiment, but I'm not yet convinced it makes programming any easier... Me neither. It gives you the means to define a grammar for English, but conveniently leaves the hard part up to the user :-) -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On 5/3/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Speagram language framework allows programming in a natural language like idiom http://www.speagram.org/ IMO this is a fascinating and worthwhile experiment, but I'm not yet convinced it makes programming any easier... Me neither. It gives you the means to define a grammar for English, but conveniently leaves the hard part up to the user :-) In next two months or so, we will change your impression without changing the truth value of this statement ;-) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
Me neither. It gives you the means to define a grammar for English, but conveniently leaves the hard part up to the user :-) In next two months or so, we will change your impression without changing the truth value of this statement ;-) Wait... did the this statement in the statement prior to the current statement refer to the statement prior to the current statement or to the statement prior to that one ;-) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Me neither. It gives you the means to define a grammar for English, but conveniently leaves the hard part up to the user :-) In next two months or so, we will change your impression without changing the truth value of this statement ;-) Wait... did the this statement in the statement prior to the current statement refer to the statement prior to the current statement or to the statement prior to that one ;-) Seriously: of the statement It gives you the means to define a grammar for English, but conveniently leaves the hard part up to the user. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
for me personally: 1.A framework in a fun reflective, dynamic language (not java or c++ or something) 2.easy to add code and test it out right away (add new logic rules, add a new module and see it at work right away) 3.the main task of intelligence should be to *facilitate the adding of new code * knowing how to run and maintain itself (not some external task like controlling robots with no gain to the system itself) 4- have a lot of algorithms and libraries available so i could very easily make this new module: (that tries to learn when to save things that are being deleted) see 'remove ?X' and interesting ?x - save ?x and add some algorithm that learns what interesting is. you need easy monitoring of the system (remove etc). other people can access your saved values.. everyone's goal is to add intelligence as a service for other people. so they can build on it. Another person can add a module that monitors my module and tries to learn whether it is valuable (and might disable it when it's not), making the system run better 5. so everyone can do their own thing, but the aim is to make the system itself better .. --- William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My current thinking is that it will take lots of effort by multiple people, to take a concept or prototype AGI and turn into something that is useful in the real world. And even one or two people worked on the correct concept for their whole lives it may not produce the full thing, they may hit bottle necks in their thinking or lack the proper expertise to build the hardware needed to make it run in anything like real time. Building up a community seems the only rational way forward. So how should we go about trying to convince each other we have reasonable concepts that deserve to be tried? I can't answer that question as I am quite bad at convincing others of the interestingness of my work. So I'm wondering what experiments, theories or demonstrations would convince you that someone else was onto something? For me an approach should have the following feature: 1) The theory not completely divorced from brains It doesn't have to describe everything about human brains, but you can see how roughly a similar sort of system to it may be running in the human brain and can account for things such as motivation, neural plasticity. 2) It takes some note of theoretical computer science So nothing that ignores limits to collecting information from the environment or promises unlimited bug free creation/alteration of programming. 3) A reason why it is different from normal computers/programs How it deals with meaning and other things. If it could explain conciousness in some fashion, I would have to abandon my own theories as well. I'm sure there are other criteria I have as well, but those three are the most obvious. As you can see I'm not too interested in practical results right at the moment. But what about everyone else? Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
--- Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Me neither. It gives you the means to define a grammar for English, but conveniently leaves the hard part up to the user :-) In next two months or so, we will change your impression without changing the truth value of this statement ;-) Wait... did the this statement in the statement prior to the current statement refer to the statement prior to the current statement or to the statement prior to that one ;-) Seriously: of the statement It gives you the means to define a grammar for English, but conveniently leaves the hard part up to the user. But how does Speagram resolve ambiguities like this one? ;-) -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On 5/3/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But how does Speagram resolve ambiguities like this one? ;-) Generally, Speagram would live with both interpretations until one of them fails or it gets a chance to ask the user. (But more likely in this case, it would fail indicating to the user his mistake, in that in English distal deixis subsumes medial deixis -- being close to the adressee.) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
On 5/3/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But how does Speagram resolve ambiguities like this one? ;-) Generally, Speagram would live with both interpretations until one of them fails or it gets a chance to ask the user. How would that be possible? I don't even know how to imagine such a thing. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
[agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
My current thinking is that it will take lots of effort by multiple people, to take a concept or prototype AGI and turn into something that is useful in the real world. And even one or two people worked on the correct concept for their whole lives it may not produce the full thing, they may hit bottle necks in their thinking or lack the proper expertise to build the hardware needed to make it run in anything like real time. Building up a community seems the only rational way forward. So how should we go about trying to convince each other we have reasonable concepts that deserve to be tried? I can't answer that question as I am quite bad at convincing others of the interestingness of my work. So I'm wondering what experiments, theories or demonstrations would convince you that someone else was onto something? For me an approach should have the following feature: 1) The theory not completely divorced from brains It doesn't have to describe everything about human brains, but you can see how roughly a similar sort of system to it may be running in the human brain and can account for things such as motivation, neural plasticity. 2) It takes some note of theoretical computer science So nothing that ignores limits to collecting information from the environment or promises unlimited bug free creation/alteration of programming. 3) A reason why it is different from normal computers/programs How it deals with meaning and other things. If it could explain conciousness in some fashion, I would have to abandon my own theories as well. I'm sure there are other criteria I have as well, but those three are the most obvious. As you can see I'm not too interested in practical results right at the moment. But what about everyone else? Will Pearson - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
William Pearson wrote: My current thinking is that it will take lots of effort by multiple people, to take a concept or prototype AGI and turn into something that is useful in the real world. And even one or two people worked on the correct concept for their whole lives it may not produce the full thing, they may hit bottle necks in their thinking or lack the proper expertise to build the hardware needed to make it run in anything like real time. Building up a community seems the only rational way forward. So how should we go about trying to convince each other we have reasonable concepts that deserve to be tried? I can't answer that question as I am quite bad at convincing others of the interestingness of my work. So I'm wondering what experiments, theories or demonstrations would convince you that someone else was onto something? For me an approach should have the following feature: 1) The theory not completely divorced from brains It doesn't have to describe everything about human brains, but you can see how roughly a similar sort of system to it may be running in the human brain and can account for things such as motivation, neural plasticity. 2) It takes some note of theoretical computer science So nothing that ignores limits to collecting information from the environment or promises unlimited bug free creation/alteration of programming. 3) A reason why it is different from normal computers/programs How it deals with meaning and other things. If it could explain conciousness in some fashion, I would have to abandon my own theories as well. I'm sure there are other criteria I have as well, but those three are the most obvious. As you can see I'm not too interested in practical results right at the moment. But what about everyone else? Will Pearson Are you asking what it would take for someone else to convince me to put my weight behind their approach? For me, the first item on the list would be: 1) Does their approach show some understanding of the Complex Systems Problem? And if so, can they show that they are addressing it in a believable way, rather than just pretending that it isn't really a problem? If they cannot do this, then their approach would just be more arbitrary hacking built on guesswork, and I might have a great deal of trouble supporting it. The other points you raise are all valid, too. Richard Loosemore. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
It seems like a lot of people are already highly motivated to work on AGI, and have been for years. The real problem is that everyone is working indendently because (1) you are not going to convince anyone that somebody else's approach is better, and (2) everyone has a different idea of what AGI is. The real problem is not AGI, but replacing human labor when natural language, vision, navigation, music processing, etc. is required. The motive is money. The solution may or may not resemble something that goes on in the human brain. I think that Google will solve many of these problems. Then we will argue pointlessly about whether or not it is AGI. --- William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My current thinking is that it will take lots of effort by multiple people, to take a concept or prototype AGI and turn into something that is useful in the real world. And even one or two people worked on the correct concept for their whole lives it may not produce the full thing, they may hit bottle necks in their thinking or lack the proper expertise to build the hardware needed to make it run in anything like real time. Building up a community seems the only rational way forward. So how should we go about trying to convince each other we have reasonable concepts that deserve to be tried? I can't answer that question as I am quite bad at convincing others of the interestingness of my work. So I'm wondering what experiments, theories or demonstrations would convince you that someone else was onto something? For me an approach should have the following feature: 1) The theory not completely divorced from brains It doesn't have to describe everything about human brains, but you can see how roughly a similar sort of system to it may be running in the human brain and can account for things such as motivation, neural plasticity. 2) It takes some note of theoretical computer science So nothing that ignores limits to collecting information from the environment or promises unlimited bug free creation/alteration of programming. 3) A reason why it is different from normal computers/programs How it deals with meaning and other things. If it could explain conciousness in some fashion, I would have to abandon my own theories as well. I'm sure there are other criteria I have as well, but those three are the most obvious. As you can see I'm not too interested in practical results right at the moment. But what about everyone else? Will Pearson -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
Bo M: - A way to switch between representations and thinking processes when one set of methods fails. This would keep expert knowledge in one domain connected to expert knowledge from other domains. What if any approaches to MULTI-DOMAIN thinking actually exist, or have been tried? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] What would motivate you to put work into an AGI project?
The Speagram language framework allows programming in a natural language like idiom http://www.speagram.org/ IMO this is a fascinating and worthwhile experiment, but I'm not yet convinced it makes programming any easier... I believe a couple of the key authors of this language are on this list. (Luke Kaiser and Luke Stafiniak) -- Ben G On 5/2/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Bo Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any pointers for how to use English to program? COBOL, BASIC, and LOGO were attempts in this direction, moreso than newer languages. But nearly all programming languages still use symbols like if or while that mean roughly the same thing in English. Programmers extend the idea, e.g. using nouns to name variables and types, and using verbs to name functions. I don't know of any recent attempts to make programming more like natural language. We seem to have backed off early attempts to do so. Trying to define a precise sequence of instructions in an ambiguous language can only go so far. Perhaps we need to change the underlying model of computation to better fit human language. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415user_secret=fabd7936
