encode_decode wrote:@gib - C# is a great language - I think better than Java.
Wasn't C# originally Java? I think Microsoft bought the language from Oracle and has been improving on it since. They're still two different languages but I think C# began as a clone of Java.
Are you an Oracle guy?
Visual Studio is awesome - I have used it many times over the years - I like the idea of the way their licensing works these days <-- Yeah, free!
and the different versions available - I mainly use it for C++ and C#. I am not too sure whether I have used EntityFramework but I have used tools similar to it. I have used quite a few different MVC frameworks in different programming domains.
Yeah, MVC seems to be the current trend now-a-days for programming architectures... until the next greatest thing comes along.
encode_decode wrote:I read your Rationality is Overrated post - I love the child seat example and the trolling rationality example. When we get time we should have a talk about different types of ways rationality can blend to irrationality and how these can be utilized in a bot - I already have a scheme that covers this sort of thing - I have a scheme for emotions too. They are like spectrum's but in code.
So not binary, you mean? Is randomness an element?
Off the top of my head, I would imagine that if you wanted to build AI to use irrational or quasi-rational approaches to achieving some goal, you would first have to program into it what it's goal is. Then you would get it to try out different approaches, some rational (i.e. completely algorithmic), others not so rational (some element of randomness, or "fuzzy logic", maybe bringing in your spectrums), and keep track of which approaches have the best track record. Then once it figures that out, repeat with a different goal.
encode_decode wrote:Answering your question: Is that like a message queue? They are more or less the same concept - I think historically the message queue might be newer than the bus - I use my own bus that I designed and basically what it does is to defer some processing when it is not needed otherwise processes everything in the order given from the outset. My bus is multidimensional - I will explain how at a later date.
encode_decode wrote:I asked a question on another forum: Why do people have the desire to talk? Well I got a few interesting responses outside the Internet's more practical results. I think talking is just networking in a way. This could be interesting to talk about one day too.
Exactly! We are constantly downloading and uploading programs into each other's brains.
encode_decode wrote:Ah yes - I know exactly what you are talking about and I am more or less able to personally bypass it - however you have some very interesting points there; tools - situation specific matters - survival - strategy; some of which the general mechanism behind Bounded Rationality could be good at. Just change out the rationality for whatever else.
Yeah, but it's usually not all or nothing. Even when a politician is engaging in a bit of sophistry, he uses some
rationality when promulgating his platform. He just allows for subtle gaps or emotional leaps sometimes.
encode_decode wrote:Further Regarding AI Domination: I think that AI is already changing us just like other technology - it is just that most of us do not really get that yet - but there is plenty of weak AI around already in smart phones, automobiles, process control systems Siri and hell, google is a form of AI. I think it is more likely that as we build AI and it changes and enhances us and our lives that our understanding of it will increase and we will put that new understanding into AI which will further enhance us and our lives and so on and so forth et cetera et cetera - I mean take your pick of philosophies there - I think even cause and effect offers us some insight here.
encode_decode wrote:As far as a world take over or revolt from AI - I don't think so - I think it might be possible if it was in the wrong hands - but in the right hands and in its own hands I don't think so. I would like to further this conversation but I will leave it at that for this post.
But movies and television aside - with some deeper thought one can see the benefit and given we have been considering the risk for so long - I have this strange faith in humans to make and do the right thing. Mostly people think that one day we will wake up and there it is, first contact - not a chance, this will be gradual transitions to very smart machines even if somewhat quicker than before the transitions will smooth out the faster we develop - I have already seen this in experiment.
I agree, with a gradual approach to building AI, we will have plenty of opportunities to see how building machines that come close to our idea of a perfect machine replica of a human being will pan out. It will allow us to make small adjustments here and there, small tweaks, small nudges in the right direction. Besides, machines will always do whatever we program them to do. In order to say that machines might one day revolt is to suppose we programmed them with the ability to revolt (it wouldn't just be a slip up on our part). The trivial solution seems to be: program them to like
serving us, to feel fulfilled
at the idea of doing man's bidding. The only way this wouldn't bode well is if there are those who want a version AI which is literally
a replication human nature--with the desire for freedom, for rights, for respect, for independence, for self-expression, etc.--and there may be some out there who want this, but they'd have to know this comes at a huge risk and a huge responsibility. But outside that aspiration, we can program AI any way we want.
encode_decode wrote:An aside: Loved The Matrix - Loved I Robot; The movie Arrival even though not really about AI is great and shows insight in many realms - for me the what if we made first contact with aliens correlated with first contact with AI has been and gone without any of us noticing - but what if first contact with AI was more like an alien first contact rather than like a bacteria or basic organism like it was. Excuse the type of writing I use in this particular paragraph, it is designed a particular way to stimulate thought but you may have to read it again.
So back to it - I am wondering whether there are infinite ways to build intelligent machines - whether we could actually model all the theories through out history as computer simulated intelligence. Imagine a Kant machine - although I often wonder whether he was already a philosophy machine. Imagine a YOU machine or a ME machine - the possibilities are endless. You mean a machine that thinks like "me"? That has the same ideas and style of thinking? The system I am working on now grows with the user - it starts out with nothing at all - it attempts to model the text world around it similar to the way we do. So the more you talk to it the more it knows. If we consider all layers in philosophy and think about the concept of layers we find ourselves thinking in layers - nature did this with the Neocortex - the Neocortex has six layers and many columns and then in humans it decided to fold itself to allow for more surface area - this bending, repeating, asymmetric, multidimensional plane makes no sense really but just thinking of its geometry makes you think of geometry - geometry is so easily correlated with algebra. This correlation allows us to impose multidimensional objects onto a plane and then layer these planes - if you are still following me at this point then you can see the implications but if you are not then never mind because your brain is already doing it for you.
The last paragraph sounds a bit nuts in hindsight but it holds many insights. So what are we talking about? A bit of everything for now.
Both the above paragraphs seem like they're jam packed with information. They don't sound nuts, just too much in too little space. Which is okay. Sometimes that's the perfect way to get a discussion started. You get it all out on the page and then we go back to each part and slowly expand on them. <-- But I'll let you do that if you want.