From: Martin Sawitzki (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2008 - 13:38:22 MST
first I must say that i'm biased as hell, and not that good a programmer.
My comment is based on the idea that AI needs a programming language that implements all paradigms needed for AI.
Right now LISP seems to be the language with the most (if not all) paradigms known to man, but i would not be surprised if new paradigms pop up during AI research.
If you read Paul Grahams LISP essays you see my point.
As soon as one can say what paradigms are needed one can select a suitable language.
If it turns out that the known stuff is all enough then any mayor commercially accepted language is ok.
So yeah, its a useless discussion right now.
The hard part might be the math, not the implementation.
> Most AGI people seem to pick languages they like, and then rationalize
> the choice with respect to its AGI optimality. In my opinion, it is
I guess one knows perfectly well the strong points of ones preferred languages, but not the weak ones.
So many IT debates become ideological.
(I once was assaulted by a guy that didn't like me using Windows.)
But as hard-core rationalist its possible to weight it out and get a useful decision.
> Most AI programming language arguments are little more than jousting
> matches between incompatible self-deceptions.
Like most discussions about any topic.
I still try to grasp the whole AI ideas presented by Eliezer.
(Reading OB helped me a lot to get a new level of thinking.)
Since nature was able to build AI, it should be possible for us as well.
-- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 23 2013 - 04:01:41 MDT