Comments on: H+ Conference and the Singularity Faster

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:52:48 +0000

Well Yeah. A common code base is a good idea. Maybe. Who chooses? And what if they choose the wrong one? Suppose Forth running on Forth Engines is the best way to go (MIPS/mW or some other metric) but not enough people have enough experience with that SYSTEM to make a good decision?
———
From Keith: A common codebase is definitely a good thing because it lowers the cost of collaboration. It is similar to how English is the common language of science. Forth is dead. No point reviving that language when Python is good enough and has the most complete set of libraries. If you care to learn more, read my book which spends two chapters on this topic.

By: Jim Farley

Jim Farley — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 03:08:46 +0000

The real problem with codemonkeys is how smart they think they are, and yet they write blog entries about their really smart stuff on a black page with white text in freakishly small font. It's a graphic illustration of why the "singularity" will never happen. ------- From Keith: ctrl-+ increases the size of the font. Learn to use your tools. There is a way to make the text black on a white background in the upper right corner of this web page. I wish it were the default but it remembers your setting.

By: steven moore

steven moore — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:23:46 +0000

while you guys were bickering, I was building an AI. Its now 5 years old, how wonderful it is. Yea, your right, critical mass IS always a problem…:)

By: Djinnome

Djinnome — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:23:16 +0000

As far as Japan’s progress in AI, they were burned by the lack of progress in 5th generation languages back in the 90’s and are currently experiencing an AI winter like the US and Britain in the 80’s. China, on the other hand, has yet to experience a period of AI hype followed by failure to live up to the hype. Thus, funding for AGI projects like opencog by the Chinese NSF is happening.

As far as programming DNA, this summer’s iGEM competition is in full swing and undergraduates with no previous experience in biology are using a common framework and set of protocols for building biological devices from a parts catalog of genetic circuits submitted by previous iGEM students to the Biobricks Foundation.

By: Djinnome

Djinnome — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:20:14 +0000

Choice of programming language is less of an issue than a common AI framework. A good framework should be able to accept code written in multiple languages. OpenCog is an example of just such a framework. Developed in C++, it nonetheless has the ability to integrate scheme, java, and python modules. As far as which language programmers should speak, there is a very strong argument for Lojban. Then, computers could participate in the conversation, too.
——-
From Keith: It is not true that the programming language doesn’t matter. Imagine building a modern car with the tools of Henry Ford. C/C++ greatly inhibit libraries from reaching critical mass. I discussed some of the challenges with OpenCV above, and more about why C/C++ are flawed in the book. I do agree we need libraries with critical mass. OpenCog looks interesting, but the team still seems pretty small (http://www.opencog.org/wiki/Community).

I don’t think we need any language like Lojban. One could enhance English by removing unnecessary letters, but there is no point as it is good enough. The same goes for Python (but not C/C++.)

By: Jordan Lederer

Jordan Lederer — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:52:00 +0000

I think all those programmers should start speaking Esperanto.
Is everybody going down one dead end better than exploring a 100 North West Passages?
What happened to the Japanese national scale AI project in Prolog?
——-
From Keith: I discuss programming issues more in my book, but I don’t think many different programming languages for people working on AI / futurism is a good thing because it makes it harder to share code. Python is a good enough language, and the way to extend a language is with new functions. Python therefore doesn’t preclude anyone exploring any particular area of science — there is no dead-end. I don’t know about the Japanese project that you refer to, but clearly it didn’t reach critical mass, or there’d be some codebase to point to!