> From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Somewhat similarly, I've done coding on Windows before, but I dislike
> the operating system quite a lot, so in general I try to avoid any
> projects where I have to use it.
>
> However, if I found some AGI project that I thought were more promis
ing further developments is best. :-)
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 6:38 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
Strong agreement with what you say but then effective rejection as a valid
MW, mine was an editorial reply to what struck me as a superficial
pronouncement on a subject not amenable to treatment so cursory. But I
like it less now, and I apologize.
Eric B
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
>
> Strong agreement with what you say but then effective rejection as a valid
> point because language issues frequently are a total barrier to entry for
> people who might have been able to do the algorithms and structures and
> cognitive architecture.
>
> I'll even go so far as to use myself as
> don't have any competent response that you can defend?
>
> This is an example of the worst of this mailing list. Hey Ben, can you at
> least speak out against garbage like this?
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Eric Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&g
William,
On 10/24/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Digging into my grab bag of lo
e like this?
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:41 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
I'll even go so far as to use myself as an example. I can easily do C++
(since I'v
> I'll even go so far as to use myself as an example. I can easily do C++
> (since I've done so in the past) but all the baggage around it make me
> consider it not worth my while. I certainly won't hesitate to use what is
> learned on that architecture but I'll be totally shocked if you aren't
>
essage -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:40 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
Mark,
In OpenCog we use all sorts of libraries for all sorts of things, of course.
Like everyone else we try to avoid reinventing th
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Note that people are working on this specific technical problem for 30
>> years, (see the scary amount of work by Cousot's lab,
>> http://www.d
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that people are working on this specific technical problem for 30
> years, (see the scary amount of work by Cousot's lab,
> http://www.di.ens.fr/~cousot/COUSOTpapers/ ), and they are still
> tackling fixed invariants,
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What I see as potential way of AI in program analysis is cracking
>> abstract interpretation, automatically inventing invariants and
>> proving that they hold, using these invariants to interface between
>> results of
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are systems that do just that, constructing models of a program
> and representing conditions of absence of a bug as huge formulas. They
> work with various limitations, theorem-prover based systems using
> counterex
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This general sentiment doesn't help if I don't know what to do specifically.
>
> Well, given a C/C++ program that does have buffer overrun or s
those who are attempting to do
> everything themselves and are re-inventing the same things that many others
> are doing and continue to do . . .
>
> - Original Message -----
> *From:* Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2008 1:42 PM
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only because it is hard to come up with representations that can be
> incrementally modified (don't break when you flip 1 bit).
No, I came up with some representations that didn't break, a
sufficiently large percentage of
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This general sentiment doesn't help if I don't know what to do specifically.
Well, given a C/C++ program that does have buffer overrun or stray
pointer bugs, there will typically be a logical proof of this fact;
current t
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 vari
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. Genetic algorithms implement a beam search. It is
> linear in the best case and exponential in the worst case.
> It depends on the shape of the search space.
>
> It turns out that real search spa
empting to do
everything themselves and are re-inventing the same things that many others are
doing and continue to do . . .
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Reed
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming language
ess code (literally) to produce the same functionality.
But I'm going to quit here. Language is politics and I find myself tiring
easily of that these days :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:56
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I write software for analysis of C/C++ programs to find bugs in them
>> (dataflow analysis, etc.). Where does AI come into this? I'd really
>>
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I write software for analysis of C/C++ programs to find bugs in them
> (dataflow analysis, etc.). Where does AI come into this? I'd really
> like to know.
Wouldn't you find AI useful? Aren't there bugs that slip past your
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell,
> Let me conclude this particular point by agreeing that the Texai program
> composition framework is a domain-specific programming language whose
> purpose is to express algorithms in tree form, from which Java sou
://texai.org/blog
http://texai.org
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:31:46 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] On programming languages
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 a
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If it's not supposed to be a generic language war, that becomes relevant.
>
> Fair point. On the other hand, I'm not yet ready to write a detai
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:28:36 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] On programming languages
AGI *really* needs an environment that comes with refl
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really. Although the distinguishing feature of a Lisp syntax tree is a
> nested list, and the fact that my composition framework is also a tree does
> not make that framework a Lisp family language.
What do you see as t
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's not supposed to be a generic language war, that becomes relevant.
Fair point. On the other hand, I'm not yet ready to write a detailed
road map out as far as "fix user interface bugs in Firefox". Okay,
here are so
isn't your father's programming *language* . . . .
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Reed
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:55 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
Russell asked:
But if it can't read the syntax tr
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:01:53 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] On programming languages
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Composed statements generate Java statements such a
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. Genetic algorithms implement a beam search. It is linear in the best case
> and exponential in the worst case. It depends on the shape of the search
> space.
It turns out that real search spaces are deceptive, so that
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Matt Mahoney
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's why you need a fault tolerant language that
> works well with redundancy. However you still have the
> inherent limitation that genetic algorithm
, this is an argument that Ben and I have been having for
years (and he, admittedly has the dollars and the programmers ;-).
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:45 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On prog
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Composed statements generate Java statements such as an assignment
> statement, block statement and so forth. You can see that there is a tree
> structure that can be navigated when performing a deductive composition
> oper
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You are describing it as a step one, with writing huge specifications
>> by hand in formally interpretable language.
>
> I skipped a lot of det
http://texai.org
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:28:39 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] On programming languages
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Stephen
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Instead of arguing language, why don't you argue platform?
Platform is certainly an interesting question. I take the view that
Common Lisp has the advantage of allowing me to defer the choice of
platform. You take the view th
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting! I have a good friend who is also an AGI enthusiast who
> followed the same path as you ... a lot of time burned making his own
> superior, stripped-down, AGI-customized variant of LISP, followed by a
> decision
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are describing it as a step one, with writing huge specifications
> by hand in formally interpretable language.
I skipped a lot of details because this thread is "on programming
languages" not "my roadmap to AGI" :-)
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's a specific problem: jumping right to the code generation to
>> specification doesn't work, because you'd need too much specification.
>> A
;re either going
to rewrite and replace it (not necessarily a bad thing) or you're going to
rue the day that you used it.
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On prog
Hi Russell,
Interesting! I have a good friend who is also an AGI enthusiast who
followed the same path as you ... a lot of time burned making his own
superior, stripped-down, AGI-customized variant of LISP, followed by a
decision to just go with LISP ;-)
But I thought I'd mention that for OpenCo
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a specific problem: jumping right to the code generation to
> specification doesn't work, because you'd need too much specification.
> At the same time, a human programmer will need much less
> specification, so it's
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If that allows AI to understand the code, without directly helping it.
>> In this case teaching it to understand these other languages might be
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's why you need a fault tolerant language that works well with
> redundancy. However you still have the inherent limitation that genetic
> algorithms can learn no faster than 1 bit per population doubling.
More to the
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Matt Mahoney
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This will be practical once we have a million-fold
> > decrease in the cost of computation, based on the cost of
> > simulating a brain sized neural net
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> Although I've already chosen an implementation language for my Texai project
> - Java, I believe that my experience may interest you.
Very much so, thank you.
> I moved up one level of procedural abstraction
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that allows AI to understand the code, without directly helping it.
> In this case teaching it to understand these other languages might be
> a better first step.
And to do that you need to give it a specification of t
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:58 PM, J Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You can get the parse tree for an arbitrary string of Python (and even make
>> it somewhat human readable), but I'm not sure if you can get it for
>>
Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 2:03:11 AM
Subject: [agi] On programming languages
I understand that some here have already started a project in a given
language, and aren't going to change at this late date; this is
addressed to
Just a great way to deal with data. I'm barely into list comprehension
yet and I still usually can't believe what I can squirt through a
single line of Python code. Just big big transforms that would be
whole blocks in most languages. In many instances it's v. handy
--
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Again, specifics. What is this "specification" thing? What kind of
>> task are to be specified in it? Where does it lead, where does it end?
>
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:58 PM, J Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can get the parse tree for an arbitrary string of Python (and even make
> it somewhat human readable), but I'm not sure if you can get it for
> underlying tree. Once you have a parse tree, I believe that you can execute
> i
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This will be practical once we have a million-fold decrease in the cost of
> computation, based on the cost of simulating a brain sized neural network. It
> could occur sooner if we discover more efficient
> solutions. So
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Due to a characteristic paucity of datatypes, all powerful, and a
> > terse, readable syntax, I usually recommend Python for any project
> > that
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://wiki.alu.org/Russell_Wallace%27s_Road_to_Lisp
I think choosing a programming language for AGI is a bit premature. The purpose
of AGI is to satisfy the goals of people. That role is currently served by the
global economy,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Due to a characteristic paucity of datatypes, all powerful, and a
> terse, readable syntax, I usually recommend Python for any project
> that is just out the gate. It's my favourite way by far at present to
> mangle huge tabl
Due to a characteristic paucity of datatypes, all powerful, and a
terse, readable syntax, I usually recommend Python for any project
that is just out the gate. It's my favourite way by far at present to
mangle huge tables. By far!
---
agi
Archives: https://
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, specifics. What is this "specification" thing? What kind of
> task are to be specified in it? Where does it lead, where does it end?
At the low end, you could look at some of the fitness functions that
have been wr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd write this specification in language it understands, including a
>> library that builds more convenient primitives from that foundation if
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd write this specification in language it understands, including a
> library that builds more convenient primitives from that foundation if
> necessary.
Okay, so you'd waste a lot of irreplaceable time creating a homebr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd write it in a separate language, developed for human programmers,
>> but keep the language with which AI interacts minimalistic, to
>> unde
Abram,
Would you agree that this thread is analogous to our debate?
- Original Message -
From: "Vladimir Nesov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:49 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:16 PM,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd write it in a separate language, developed for human programmers,
> but keep the language with which AI interacts minimalistic, to
> understand how it's supposed to grow, and not be burdened by technical
> details in t
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, my point was that maybe the mistake is use of additional
>> language constructions and not their absence? You yourself should be
>> able
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 extens
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 the
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why mix AI-written code and your own code?
Example: you want the AI to generate code to meet a spec, which you
provided in the form of a fitness function. If the problem isn't
trivial and you don't have a million years t
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Russell Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Russel, in what capacity do you use that language?
>
> In all capacities, for both hand written and machine generated content.
Why mix AI-wri
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russel, in what capacity do you use that language?
In all capacities, for both hand written and machine generated content.
> Do AI algorithms
> write in it?
That's the idea, once said AI algorithms are implemented.
>
Russel, in what capacity do you use that language? Do AI algorithms
write in it? How it's run? Where primitive operations come from? From
what you described, depending on the answers, it looks like a simple
hand-written lambda-calculus-like language with interpreter might be
better than a real lisp
I understand that some here have already started a project in a given
language, and aren't going to change at this late date; this is
addressed to those for whom it's still an open question.
The choice of language is said to not matter very much, and there are
projects for which this is true. AGI
73 matches
Mail list logo
