Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160152

Re: The True Aficionado?

Show all headers | View raw

mentificium@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote:
>> >> >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote:
>> >> >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a
>> wonderful
>> >> >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put.
>> >> >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate
>> >> >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but
>> >> >> merely a repository of your own thoughts.
>> >> >
>> >> > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts
>> >> > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution.
>> >> >
>> >> So your idea of an AI machine is one
>> >> whose processes are not reproducible?
>> >   ^^^^^
>> > If "whose" applies here (and it does :-)
>> > thank you for conceding that the AI machine
>> > is a "who" -- a person.
>>
>> You are the one with that premise.  Now answer the question.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> The AI that I am creating in Perl at
>
> http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt
>
> is a combination of my four previous AI Minds:
>
> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth in English;
>
> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Wotan in German;
>
> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind in English;
>
> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Dushka in Russian.
>
> The processes of the AI Mind are "reproducible"
> only up to a point. If no user input is entered
> into the AI Mind, its processes are deterministic
> and therefore reproducible. But user input is a
> jumble of randomness, and so an AI life is not
> reproducible any more than a human life is.

So how do you debug a problem?  How do you determine
that a fix really fixes the bug if you can't reproduce it?

>
> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal
> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of
> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms.
>
> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at
> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and
> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder.

I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate
of the developers and other workers who did the work
to produce the hard/software.


>
> By one estimate, there are ca. 477,000 Perl
> programmers out there, many of them making
> good money coding in Perl: "the glue of the
> Internet." Here is my annotation of today:
>
> **** Sun.21.FEB.2016
>
>  7:03 a.m. Logging in to NeoCities. "ai" has 19.5K views.
> Uploading ghost082.pl as "perlmind.txt"    "stable for English and German"
>
> ****
>
> My Perl AI webpages receive about one hundred
> pageviews per day in recent weeks of 2016,
> but not so many on weekends as on weekdays.
> From the scarcity of visits on weekends, I
> am happy to conclude that well-paid Perl coders
> check into my Perl AI progress on weekdays
> when they are at work, not on weekends.
>
> Since the perlmind.txt webpage has no
> hit-counter on it, I like to think that
> most accesses are being made to the code,
> not to the various ".html" pages.
>
> I dream on further that in corporate
> boardrooms the tech VP is saying...
> ah, well, never mind. Bye BAH for now.

'ta.

/BAH

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:33 +0000
  Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-19 20:42 -0800
    Re: The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 11:11 +0000
      Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 05:06 -0800
        Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
          Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 15:11 -0800
            Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
              Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 13:43 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 06:06 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:40 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-23 09:50 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-24 13:40 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 03:14 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 13:55 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 01:30 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-02 14:19 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 03:51 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 16:18 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:52 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-04 13:22 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:33 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-04 15:47 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:04 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:40 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 23:18 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-04 17:18 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-04 22:09 -0500
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-05 14:36 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 02:03 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-06 17:28 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:54 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:39 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:24 -0700
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:43 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:34 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-07 16:24 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:45 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-03 16:01 -0600
  Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 20:59 -0800
    Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 23:14 -0800
    Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:33 +0100
    Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:19 +1100
      Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 08:56 -0800
        Re: The True Aficionado? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:22 -0600
          Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:50 +1100
            Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 22:49 -0800
              Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 19:32 +1100
              Re: The True Aficionado? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 09:23 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
              Re: The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-22 11:30 +0000
        Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:38 +1100

csiph-web