Alan Grimes wrote: > > You say calculator programs won't benerfit the devolopment of AI, > > so I suppose you like things that are of bigger scale. > > Not necessarily... > It is quite possible that AI can be solved with a code no larger than > your calculator programs... > > With a book I am reading, comes a version of prolog which implements > many concepts from AI in only 45k-binary. You used the phrase "stupid calculator" from which you can conclude that I'm not refering to binary size but complexity. > > As Neil described it, it sure sounds a bit pathetic when compared to > > the idea of AI, but the only problem with that describtion was that it > > was down-to-earth and describing programs that make it work, not > > designs. > > If you are referring to the website for your platform that your friend > gave links to, the presentation is quite weak... The presentation isn't meant for AI devolopers but end users. =] > > We've got a network platform intended to make the Internet > > equaly friendly to users and software. > > To the extent this makes sense, I would say that usability for an AI > entity would probably be through a simulated human-oriented interface or > through a cybernetic interface. The "AI entity" will not gain all the hardwired human knowledge just by being intelligent. The mind still requires a brain to work in and this network will be the brain. > > Our network is the perfect environment for any type of aritificial > > mind. > > Oh yay! > Another bold claim! > The superlative, "perfect", requires quite a bit of proof. I am > confident you have nothing of the sort. The "perfect for" was semanticly supposed to relate to "with everthing it needs". Thus not as bold, if you think of all of the theory details: As in maths, X can cover all numbers, our network can cover all needs of a mind. > I can list several reasons to the contrary... > > 1. The network at large is not a laboratory setting... For research, we > should stick to configuration-controlled machines. "A laboratory setting"? What's the problem with using actual data? > 2. Untill we know more about the nature of AI, giving the AI such broad > access could be fatally foolish. We don't know all numbers, yet we can claim that X can cover them all. The concept of our network is deeply devoloped, it won't fail at such simple tricks. > Again, this doesn't make much sense... > A mainframe is a very specific class of machine such as a fully > configured SGI Origin 3k. What you describe is called a "Grid" or a > network of distributed hosts. Forgive my semantics, english isn't my primary language. It's a little hard to describe it all, I often resort to words that seem to have about the right meaning. > What exactly is this "World of AI" and what are you pointing to as the > "hardwired world". In design it's a system of multiple layers with named points in them floating independenly of eachother. A hardwired world is a section of cyberspace where, for example, software is bound to hardware or addresses. Now if you want to have a learing system or, well, a mind that dosen't care much what is it interfacing to, you need more flexibility. Our system provides that flexibility. > > You probably haven't heard of the (relatively new) script language our > > network platform is using, > > No, would you care to name it? Excuse the slight practical problem, as the most approprate name, ICI, is already taken. I'll refer to it as "script language". > What kind of language is it anyway? It's a non-object-orientated, sequential type in which commands address 'floating targets', functions that preform operations, variables and arrays that contain data. The interpreter is the very network, it is very flexible as to hardware AND software (and thus speed, method and reliability). Whatever information is missing, it is either considered as missing or automaticaly determined. > > and how it can be automaticaly built on the run without any > > complications of ordinary programing languages (it is as simple as the > > procedure it describes). > > Sounds like Lisp; vaguely..... Neil: ;] > > Our network platform is built in a way that it dosen't need to be > > finnished to function, meaning that we should have some minimal level > > of AI as soon as we dig into it. > > ???? > It has never been about the platform, always about the *PROGRAM*. I don't suppose you think AI will be ONE SINGLE PROGRAM?! This stuff was tested before, man, it never worked. The platform *with all the software in it* is as much the platform as a user or program would want. What I wanted to say is that not all components need to be in place or even exist by the time we get to the first run. > > This network platform offers a programing language, a network, > > I can run your language on my 486; > I don't see what you are aiming to accomplish though... There are thousands of 'AI' programs out there, but none quite capable enough to be called AI. If one managed to combine the capactiy of all those programs, he would at the very least obtain the most practical program on this world. Our system enables programs to cooperate as if they were one and at the same time toughly intigrated and optimized for best results on the run. There needs to be only one instance of each program for a globaly available service. We take one Altavista, one CYC, one Alice and one NL sentence-builder and viola, you've got a very smart, fast and english-speaking system. > Your lack of scientific expertise is becoming increasingly apparent. Should I say yours is floating someplace that is nor earth, nor cyberspace. And don't take it personaly, I don't see anything that could have exhibited vaguely as much functionality as our system at such a devolopment stage. > > ultimate compatibilty and ways to link all of this in you-name-it ways, > > providing ways to hybridize existant 'AI' engines around the world > > making one supreme global and immediately usefull AI: the Core. > > That's silly! > Immagine what would have happened if they tried to build the Saturn V > that way.... If "Saturn V" is the missile I think it is, I might as well say you're trying to fit a scientist into a paper matchbox. > > I say "immediately usefull", because of there is a great distance > > between AI that fits the definition and AI that does something usefull. > > AI is AI.... > We have used various forms of computational cognition for years, now its > time to bring it togeather and achieve human equivalency and beyond! In one program? =] Tell me who is being silly here... > > Because our system bridges the gaps between programs, as soon as we've > > got something that can think, we have something that can control and > > take it's effect on something. > > As does many technological systems... The key is to give it human level > conceptualization. Oh, we're talking "levels" again... =] Anyway, you'll notice that we have all the good ideas in one place. This is how we began working on this and it is how we're still working on it. > What is the deal here anyway? We are obviously working on a program we are trying to sell. I and Neil both 'originated' from which, no kidding, has something to do with AI devolopment. We are not trying to sell you the program, in case you were wondering. We are trying to encurage other devolopers to benerfit from our work simply in order to boost devolopment. Our software is built in a way that whoever ends up with a copy can add his own little bit to the global network, that can come into effect seconds after introduced. Now we sure look silly trying to give you something very usefull for free, eh? If you ever get around to have a piece of software that can do something, but have a lack of users for any reason, contact us, do some very minior adaptation works and we will gladly give your program a network to live and work in. C'ya! -- Cellphone: 0038640809676 Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly reply. Digging for info? Try AI Meta Search: Http://WWW.AIMetaSearch.Com MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM) Http://WWW.MesonAI.Com