On 2/18/07, Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You might check out D ( http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html ). Mind
you, it's still in the quite early days, and missing a lot of libraries
... which means you need to construct interfaces to the C versions.
Still, it answers several of
Hi,
I was offline and missed the large discussion so let me just add my 2c:
Cobra is currently at a late alpha stage. There are some docs
(including a comparison to Python) and examples. (And pardon my plain
looking web site, but I have no graphics skills.) Here it is:
http://cobralang.com/
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Aki Iskandar wrote:
Hello -
I'm new on this email list. I'm very interested in AI / AGI - but do
not have any formal background at all. I do have a degree in
Finance, and have been a professional consultant / developer for the
last 9 years (including having
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 08:24:21AM -0800, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
What is the nature of your language and development environment? Is it
in the same neighborhood as imperative OO languages such as Python and
Java? Or something different like Prolog?
There are
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 12:40:03AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote:
Really? I question whether you can get anywhere near the same level of
reflection and true data - code equivalence in any other standard
language. I would think this capability might be very important
especially to a Seed AI.
On 2/18/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck is also absolutely incorrect that the only way to generate code by
code is to use Reflection.Emit. It is very easy to have your code write
code in any language to a file (either real or virtual), compile it, and
then load the resulting
flavors of LISP are
available on the .NET framework.
- Original Message - From: Chuck Esterbrook
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: Languages for AGI [WAS Re: [agi] Priors and
indefinite probabilities]
On 2/17
Chuck, I looked at Cobra yesterday, and I like it :-)
I will try to get some time and play with it. My love of Python, and
reluctant admittance of appreciating .NET, are pointing me in the
direction of using one of 3 languages:
In no particular oder:
1 - Python (CPython)
2 - IronPython
that several flavors of LISP are available on the .NET framework.
- Original Message - From: Chuck Esterbrook
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: Languages for AGI [WAS Re: [agi] Priors and
indefinite probabilities]
On 2/17
: **SPAM** Re: Languages for AGI [WAS Re: [agi] Priors and
indefinite probabilities]
Before I comment on Mark's response, I think that the best comment
on this email thread came from Pei, who wrote ...
quote
I guess you can see, from the replies so far, that what language
people choose
On 2/18/07, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck, I looked at Cobra yesterday, and I like it :-)
Glad to hear that. :-)
I will try to get some time and play with it. My love of Python, and
reluctant admittance of appreciating .NET, are pointing me in the
direction of using one of 3
On 2/18/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Waser wrote:
Chuck is also absolutely incorrect that the only way to generate code by
code is to use Reflection.Emit. It is very easy to have your code write
code in any language to a file (either real or virtual), compile it,
On 2/18/07, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enough said. I think we can all get along, and learn something from
each other.
Oh, yeah??? Prove it!
LOL No, I'm totally kidding. I couldn't resist making that joke. :-)
There are certainly a couple people on this list that take every
lol ... I enjoy your humor.
Good point on the Microsoft thing. And you're right. I certainly
didn't mean it to be a snide remark. When I used to work at
Microsoft, I got tired of the Microsoft is king attitude - it was
rampant - unfortunately. So my comment was only contextual - the
Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
On 2/18/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh. Why not work in C++, then, and write your own machine language?
No need to write files to disk, just coerce a pointer to a function
pointer. I'm no Lisp fanatic, but this sounds more like a case of
and play science the right
way, with facts.
- Original Message -
From: Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:45 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: Languages for AGI [WAS Re: [agi] Priors and indefinite
probabilities]
Mark -
I don't know you
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 09:51:45AM -0800, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
As Michael Wilson pointed out, only one thing is certain when it comes
to a language choice for FAI development: If you build an FAI in
anything other than Lisp, numerous Lisp fanatics will spend the next
subjective
You might want to consider the Boo programming language for a
Python-like language on .NET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boo_programming_language
http://boo.codehaus.org/
/offtopic
-Jey Kottalam
On 2/18/07, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck, I looked at Cobra yesterday, and I like
Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
On 2/18/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Waser wrote:
...
I find C++ overly complex while simultaneously lacking well known
productivity boosters including:
* garbage collection
* language level bounds checking
* contracts
* reflection /
On 2/18/07, Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
On 2/18/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Waser wrote:
...
I find C++ overly complex while simultaneously lacking well known
productivity boosters including:
* garbage collection
* language
On 2/18/07, Chuck Esterbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are absolutely...correct. I think the utility of existing database
servers is very underappreciated in academia and many AI researchers
are from academia or working on academia style projects (gov't
research grants or work to support
I've seen the programming language merry-go-round on AI related forums too
many times to become embroiled, but for what it's worth I'm using C# /
.NET. My master plan for robotic domination involves using Mono.
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 12:40:03AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote:
Really? I question whether you can get anywhere near the same level of
reflection and true data - code equivalence in any other standard
language. I would think this capability might be very important
Mark Waser wrote:
And, from a practical programmatic way of having code generate code,
those are the only two ways. The way you mentioned - a text file -
you still have to call the compiler (which you can do through the
above namespaces), but then you still have to bring the dll into the
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
If you know in advance what code you plan on writing, choosing a
language should not be a big deal. This is as true of AI as any other
programming task.
It is still a big deal. You want to chose a language that allows you to
express your intent as concisely and
Aki Iskandar wrote:
Hello -
I'm new on this email list. I'm very interested in AI / AGI - but do
not have any formal background at all. I do have a degree in Finance,
and have been a professional consultant / developer for the last 9
years (including having worked at Microsoft for almost
Thanks Ben - this makes complete sense, and you've answered my
question precisely.
~Aki
On 19-Feb-07, at 1:03 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Aki Iskandar wrote:
Hello -
I'm new on this email list. I'm very interested in AI / AGI - but
do not have any formal background at all. I do have a
Hello -
I'm new on this email list. I'm very interested in AI / AGI - but do
not have any formal background at all. I do have a degree in
Finance, and have been a professional consultant / developer for the
last 9 years (including having worked at Microsoft for almost 3 of
those
Aki Iskandar wrote:
Hello -
I'm new on this email list. I'm very interested in AI / AGI - but do
not have any formal background at all. I do have a degree in Finance,
and have been a professional consultant / developer for the last 9 years
(including having worked at Microsoft for almost
On 2/17/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not always true that C++ is used (I am building my own language
and development environment to do it, for example), but if C++ is most
common in projects overall, that probably reflects the facts that:
...
Back in the old days, it
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 08:46:17AM -0800, Peter Voss wrote:
We use .net/ c#, and are very happy with our choice. Very productive.
I don't know much about those. Bytecode, JIT at runtime? Might be not
too slow. If you use code generation, do you do it at source or at bytecode
level?
Eugen(Of
that (software) design is by far the more important bottleneck.
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:50 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Languages for AGI [WAS Re: [agi] Priors and indefinite
probabilities]
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007
I completely agree with you Pei. Language choice is all over the
place, and for differing reasons / views.
I didn't intend on having people spend so many cycles in offering
their input. But it sure is a testament to how friendly, and
passionate about AI, the people on this list are :-)
On 2/17/07, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I can ask two quick questions, I'll get busy with following the
suggestions :-)
They are even more controversial than your previous question. ;-)
1 - Of the many branches of mathematics, which is best as a starting
point? Calculus?
On 2/17/07, Aki Iskandar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard, Danny, Pei, Chuck, Eugen, Peter ... thanks all for answering
my question.
...
C# is definitely a productive language, mainly due to the IDE, and it
is faster than Java - however, it is strongly typed.
Perhaps the disadvantage to C#,
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:03:41 -0500, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, that is a cleaner and simpler argument than the various more
concrete PI paradoxes... (wine/water, etc.)
Yes.
It seems to show convincingly that the PI cannot be consistently applied
across the board, but
LEADING TO THE ONLY THING REALLY INTERESTING ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:
What interests me is that the Principle of Indifference is taken for
granted by so many people as a logical truth when in reality it is
fraught with logical difficulties.
Gillies (2000) makes an analogy between the
gts wrote:
LEADING TO THE ONLY THING REALLY INTERESTING ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:
What interests me is that the Principle of Indifference is taken for
granted by so many people as a logical truth when in reality it is
fraught with logical difficulties.
I think it's been a pretty long time
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:21:25 -0500, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's been a pretty long time since the PI was taken by any
serious thinkers as a logical truth, though...
Objective bayesianism stands or falls (vs subjective bayesianism) on this
question of whether the PI is
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:21:22 -0500, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I see it, science is about building **collective** subjective
understandings among a group of rational individuals coping with a
shared environment
That is consistent with the views of de Finetti and other
So none of this is very new ;-)
No. :)
Also your idea of collective subjective understandings sounds similar to
something I read about an 'inter-subjective' interpretation of probability
theory, which purports to stand somewhere between objective bayesianism
and subjective bayesianism.
Tying together recent threads on indefinite probabilities and prior
distributions (PI, maxent, Occam)...
For those who might not know, the PI (the principle of indifference)
advises us, when confronted with n mutually exclusive and exhaustive
possibilities, to assign probabilities of 1/n to
Indeed, that is a cleaner and simpler argument than the various more
concrete PI paradoxes... (wine/water, etc.)
It seems to show convincingly that the PI cannot be consistently applied
across the board, but can be heuristically applied to certain cases but
not others as judged contextually
Chuckling that this is still going on, and top posting based on Ben's
prior example...
Cox's proof is all well and good, but I think gts still misses the
point:
The principle of indifference is still the *best* one can do under
conditions of total ignorance.
Any other distribution would imply
On 2/11/07, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't use Bayes Nets in Novamente because Novamente's knowledge
network is loopy. And the peculiarities that allow standard Bayes net
belief propagation to work in standard loopy Bayes nets, don't hold up
I know what you mean by the term
Tying together recent threads on indefinite probabilities and prior
distributions (PI, maxent, Occam), I thought I'd make a note on the
relation between the two topics.
In the indefinite probability approach, one assigns a statement S a
truth value L,U,b,k denoting one's attachment of
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Tying together recent threads on indefinite probabilities and prior
distributions (PI, maxent, Occam), I thought I'd make a note on the
relation between the two topics.
In the indefinite probability approach, one assigns a statement S a
truth value L,U,b,k denoting
Eliezer,
Ben, is the indefinite probability approach compatible with local
propagation in graphical models?
Hmmm... I haven't thought about this before, but on first blush, I don't
see any reason why you couldn't locally propagate indefinite
probabilities through a Bayes net...
We
48 matches
Mail list logo
