RE: The A.I. Project
Rom,
Thanks for the critique.I'll try to show why I think consciousness
is amenable to ordinary loop program flow.Im not adequately sure
you proved that it COULD NOT be done,and Im definately not sure that
TONIGHT I can prove that it can be done.
How do our thoughts come about? What is consciousness? Have you ever
laid in bed,not able to sleep and listened to your mind hum away? Each
thought coming from a previous thought, maybe not even verbalized,just
a series of images,floating from one picture to the next.You mull them
over and over,like a loop, and each time it goes around you try another
option,untill you finally come up with something.
An a.i. doesn't "know" anything,just like like us it keeps repeating
the problem in its "head",matching different solutions with every
iteration.When it thinks it might have the solution it trys to make
it work,if it works,great,if not,now it knows by experience that that
approach failed,so if its an optimist,it trys again. But not all a.i
would be optimistic,if its failed too many times before,it might quit
and revert back to its basic lifestyle,which is also just a big
programmed loop,we wake,work and sleep,over and over...
Its funny that you had listed some good reasons why Euphoria WOULD
be a good language to program this with,yet your initial premise and
your conclusion stated that it would not.
The question of artificial intelligence modifying its own programming
or creating its own programming has already been debated.We can't
modify our own programming,so an a.i. definately cannot modify ITS
programming.If you could modify your own core programming YOU wouldn't
be YOU,and thats the whole premise behind pure a.i,it exists,in
whatever state,if it refuses to learn,eat,move or do anything,IT IS
STILL AN ENTITY!It exists in the loops and cycles of its own
consciousness.We invent the algoritms,the a.i. determines its own
course.
If you remove its enemies,you may find that it sees itself as an
enemy,there are no guarantees,if you know how it will react you have
a robot.We only know that it will react,because for every action there
is an equal and opposite reaction.Even if you remove its stimuli,it
will react to itself.
The computer itself is the most complicated machine in existence,
yet it operates very simply at its lowest level,I suggest that
a.i. programming is equally simple...at its lowest levels. We just
need to find these lower levels and distance ourselves from the
overall complexity. We've already made progress towards something
to start coding,we cant possibly plan everything ahead of time.
We should
just do it and find out when we get there
>From: Rom <kjehas at frisurf.no>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>Subject: RE: The A.I. Project
>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:50:22 +0000
>
>
>Some thoughts about Jdube's original message.
>
>First Jdube seems to assume that an ordinary programming language is
>suitable for logical (AI) programming. I disagree. I think he is a bit
>optimistic here.
>
> > ... so I would establish a programmed loop of thoughts....
>
>That is easy to program. Remember that the CPU and Windows are running
>loops all the time. These loops are are sending messages ... if that
>count? This is not exactly what we usually term as "consciousness".
>
> > ... then as i learns new things....
>
>
>Introducing learning comes a bit fast here.
>
>What is learning? If learning is to update data in some database, then
>learning is easy to program. I would suggest that a large program that
>is learning must have some ability to change itself .... producing
>program code that it can execute.
>
>So already at the very start of this discussion I disagree.
>
>Euphoria isn't suitable for logical programming. But Euphoria could
>probably be made suitable (if one is optimistic) ....
>
>1) A small interpretor like Euphoria can be control by another program.
>Source can be generated, loaded and executed. If the program halts? ...
>well, then it had to be aborted (not posssible today ... I don't know).
>
>2) Euphoria is so small today that it can be changed to support new
>functionality ..... too late to do the same with C.
>
>3) For a program to be changeable I suppose the program syntax has to be
>very simple. Euphoria is maybe the simplest language that is....still
>powerful. The simpler program code is... the more realistic it will be
>for a program to change the code.
>
>The simplest program code I can think about is rules (if A the B). The
>simplicity of rules is such that it doesn't matter if the rules are put
>into a database, not the program itself. Rules can be evaluated in that
>case too.
>
>Conclusion.
>Trying to simulate worms or things like that will fail because Euphoria
>hasn't been adapted to logical programming. Those who think this is just
>a matter of ordinary programming cannot even create a decent demo expert
>system with Euphoria ... I am afraid.
>
>Rom
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
