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 stray
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
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 analysis
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 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,
.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 the wheel. We nearly always
avoid coding our own data
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
Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
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've done so in the past) but all the baggage around it make me
consider
list. Hey Ben, can you at
least speak out against garbage like this?
- Original Message - From: Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
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
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 an
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:
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
point because language issues frequently are a total barrier to entry for
people who might have been able to do
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 promising
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 to
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
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-written
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.
Where
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 then you run
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 extension
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 to
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 the
Abram,
Would you agree that this thread is analogous to our debate?
- Original Message -
From: Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
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 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
understand how
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 homebrew
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 3:24 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 written
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:
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 tables.
--- 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 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 is just
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 far
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
Hi Russell,
Although I've already chosen an implementation language for my Texai project -
Java, I believe that my experience may interest you. As many here already
know, Cycorp's implementation language was a lisp subset during the the time I
worked there. At Cycorp, I explored creating an
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
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 those
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 to
--- 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 network. It
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, 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
a
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 a
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
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: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
On Fri
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.
At the same
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 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 to
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 that
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 Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
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 details
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
operation
and I have been having for
years (and he, admittedly has the dollars and the programmers ;-).
- Original Message -
From: Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:45 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
On Fri, Oct 24
--- 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 algorithms can
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
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 as an assignment
statement
)
This 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 tree, how
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 some
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 reflection
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 detailed
://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 at 6:27 PM
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 source
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 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
like to
functionality.
But I'm going to quit here. Language is politics and I find myself tiring
easily of that these days :-)
/language *opinion*
- Original Message -
From: Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:56 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi
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 languages
Hi Mark,
I readily concede that .Net is superior
2008/10/24 Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But I thought I'd mention that for OpenCog we are planning on a
cross-language approach. The core system is C++, for scalability and
efficiency reasons, but the MindAgent objects that do the actual AI
algorithms should be creatable in various
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
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 the
:* Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2008 1:42 PM
*Subject:* **SPAM** Re: [agi] On programming languages
Hi Mark,
I readily concede that .Net is superior to Java out-of-the box with respect
to reflection and metadata support as you say. I spent
67 matches
Mail list logo
