Re: The A.I. Project
On 0, Rom <kjehas at frisurf.no> wrote:
> 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.
>
It depends on what part of the program you consider to b the "brain" of
the AI. If you mean the Euphoria statements and such, then yes its not
adaquete. However, if you mean the sequence of data used for the genetic
algorithem or the neural net or whatever, then it is adaquete, although
technically the AI is the sequence, and not the Eu code.
> > ... 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
> counts? This is not exactly what we usually term as "consciousness".
>
The problem comes with defining consciousness. I cant say that such a
loop
would make the computer consious, but I would say that it would give it
the ability to "think", in a limited sense. (Again, though, this depends
on how you define "think".)
> > ... 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.
>
What if the database itself _is_ the "program code"? (Of course, that
would
mean that Euphoria only manifests the AI's brain, but I dont remember
anyone who argued that this could be done in EU that the EU statements
_themselves_ were to be the brain of the AI.)
> 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.
Ok, you're right. This is not a matter of ordinary programming. But keep
in mind that languages such a Prolog and LISP are written in another
language (C i believe, I remember seeing one implementation of LISP in
Java ...) and that with the proper programming it is most certainly
possible in EU.
>
> Rom
>
jbrown
--
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
