Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence

 
 
White Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for a new
service provider.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Arthur T. Murray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
"David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
> "Arthur T. Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> A webpage of proposed Standards in Artificial Intelligence
>> is at http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/standard.html --
>> updated today.


> [...] In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
> 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.


http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.

> Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
> indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
> ports on a server. [...]


http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis explains
that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary (enVocab) module
to form an English lexical node for any new word detected
by the Audition module in the stream of user input.

> [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
> have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
> given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
> the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
> irrelevant. [...]


http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#hardware (q.v.)
explains that not "the size of some programmer's hardware" counts
but rather the amount of memory available to the artificial Mind.

The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and ambitious.
Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other languages:

http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/cpp.html -- C++ with starter code;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/java.html -- see Mind.JAVA 1 and 2;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/lisp.html -- Lisp AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/perl.html -- first Perl module;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/prolog.html -- Prolog AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/python.html -- Python AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/ruby.html -- Ruby AI Blog (OO AI);
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/scheme.html -- Scheme AI Weblog;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see "Mind.VB #001" link.

AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.

The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.

AI has been solved in theory and in primitive, free AI source code.
Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate and proliferate.

A.T. Murray
--
http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI Textbook;
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- review by Dr. Ben G.
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN Notices.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
In comp.lang.java.programmer White Wolf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for a new
> service provider.


Seems on topic to every group posted to to me. Also an interesting
project. But I guess you had to actually read his post to figure
that out, Mr. Net-Cop.

--arne

 
Reply With Quote
 
David B. Held
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2003
"Arthur T. Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
> [...]
> > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
> > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.

>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.


Brittle. Language-specific. Non-scalable. You are trying
to build something "intelligent", aren't you?

> > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
> > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
> > ports on a server. [...]

>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
> explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
> (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
> new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
> user input.


Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is embarrassingly
underspecified, the notion of indexing words is just silly. If
a dictionary were a database, it might be a reasonable idea.
But trying to simulate human speech with a database-like
dictionary is the way of symbolic AI, and the combinatorial
nature of language is going to rear its ugly head when you try
to scale your system to realistic proportions. Hence, why
programs like SHRDLU were good at their blocks worlds,
but terrible at everything else. Again, a little history would
do you well. If you want to refer to your text, let's take a
quick look at something you wrote:

6.4. Introduce aspects of massively parallel ("maspar")
learning by letting many uniconceptual filaments on the
mindgrid coalesce into conceptual minigrids that
redundantly hold the same unitary concept as a massively
parallel aggregate with massively parallel associative tags,
so that the entire operation of the AI Mind is massively
parallel in all aspects except such bottleneck factors as
having only two eyes or two ears -- in the human tradition.

Umm...pardon me, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.
"uniconceptual filaments"? "comceptual minigrids"?
"massively parallel aggregate"? Where is the glossary for
your pig Latin? How on earth is a programmer supposed
to build a computational model from this fluff? Read your
mind? She certainly can't read your text. This sounds more
like a motivational speech from a pointy-haired boss in a
Dilbert strip than instructions for how to build an "AI Mind".
I would parody it, but you've done a fine job yourself. Here's
the real cheerleading right here:

Then go beyond human frailties and human limitations
by having any number ad libitum of local and remote
sensory input devices and any number of local and
remote robot embodiments and robotic motor
opportunities. Inform the robot of human bondage in
mortal bodies and of robot freedom in possibilities yet
to be imagined.

Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.

> > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
> > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
> > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
> > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
> > irrelevant. [...]

>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#hardware
> (q.v.) explains that not "the size of some programmer's
> hardware" counts but rather the amount of memory
> available to the artificial Mind.


The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
have not given enough detail to build a working model. It's
like me saying: "If you have a tokamak transverse reactor,
then my spaceship plans will get you to Alpha Centauri in
8 years, but if you only have a nuclear fission drive, then it
will take 10. Oh and drop your carrots and onions in this
big black kettle I have here." Also, the memory space of a
single processor really isn't that important, since a serious
project would be designed to operate over clusters or grids
of processors. But I suppose it never occurred to you that
you might want an AI brain that takes advantage of more
than one processor, huh? I suppose you think the Sony
"Emotion Engine" is what Lt. Cmdr. Data installed so he
could feel human?

> The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
> ambitious.


There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
too much fibre for me to digest.

> Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
> languages:


If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
being (b)led by the blind.

> [...]
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
> "Mind.VB #001" link.


This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
already has a higher IQ than you.

> AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
> http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.


Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
you any day of the week.

> The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
> and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.


And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
crossover, selection, and mutation?

> AI has been solved in theory


LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
illegal, because it's obviously great stuff!

> and in primitive, free AI source code.


Here is an example of "primitive, free AI source code":

10 PRINT "Hello, world!"

See? It's got a speech generation and emotion engine
built right in! And the AI is so reliable, it will never display
a bad attitude, even if you tell it to grab you a cold one
from the fridge. It always has a cheerful, positive
demeanor. It is clearly self-aware, because it addresses
others as being distinct from itself. And it has a theory of
mind, because it knows that others expect a greeting when
meeting for the first time. Unfortunately, it has no memory,
so every meeting is for the first time. However, its output
is entirely consistent, given this constraint. I guess I've
just proved that "AI has been solved in theory"!

> Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
> and proliferate.


I'm still waiting to see *your* mind germinate. I've watched
grass grow faster. While ad homs are usually frowned
upon, I don't see any harm when applied to someone who
cannot be reasoned with anyway. Since you seem to have
single-handedly "solved the AI problem", I'd like to ask
you a few questions I (and I'm sure many others) have.

1) How does consciousness work?
2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees red
that I do? How do we know?
3) How are long-term memories formed?
4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract
reasoning?
5) How does language work?
6) How do emotions work?

Please don't refer me to sections of your site. I've seen
enough of your writing to know that the answers to my
questions cannot be found there.

Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human
brains are collections of specialized problem solvers
which must each be understood in considerable detail
in order to produce anything remotely intelligent. You
never gave a rebuttal, which tells me you don't have one.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and start out by
reading Society of Mind, by Minsky. After that, read
any good neurobiology or neuroscience text to see just
how "blank" your brain is when it starts out. Pinker
has several good texts you should read. There's a
reason why he's a professor at MIT, and you're a
crackpot trying to con programmers into fulfilling your
ridiculous fantasies.

Dave


 
Reply With Quote
 
White Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2003
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> In comp.lang.java.programmer White Wolf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Stop these off topic posting to comp.lang.c++ or prepare to look for
>> a new service provider.

>
> Seems on topic to every group posted to to me. Also an interesting
> project. But I guess you had to actually read his post to figure
> that out, Mr. Net-Cop.


Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then look at
the charter of this newsgroup:

"First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
discussion
of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
ANSI/ISO
language standard. "

If all that is not enough the list of the newsgroups he cross-posted to
should indicate that the topicality is questionable.

This newsgroup (and I am afraid all languag newsgroups are such) is not
created as a place for discussion of specific programming problems,
especially not if the post is cross-posted to unrelated newsgroups.

Discussion of specific C++ solutions would be topical, but not a genral
discussion for several languages. For that comp.programming etc. should be
used.

--
WW aka Attila


 
Reply With Quote
 
Buster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2003
"White Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then look at
> the charter of this newsgroup:
>
> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
> discussion
> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
> ANSI/ISO
> language standard. "


Whoa, actually quoting the charter now. I didn't think you'd go that far.

Regards, Buster


 
Reply With Quote
 
White Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2003
Buster wrote:
> "White Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Look at the subject. Look at the content of the posted site. Then
>> look at the charter of this newsgroup:
>>
>> "First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c++ is a group for
>> discussion
>> of general issues of the C++ programming language, as defined by the
>> ANSI/ISO
>> language standard. "

>
> Whoa, actually quoting the charter now. I didn't think you'd go that
> far.


I did not go anywhere. I was here, in this newsgroup. The topic went far.

--
WW aka Attila


 
Reply With Quote
 
Arthur T. Murray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2003
"David B. Held" wrote on Sat, 13 Sep 2003:
>> > In one section, you define a core set of concepts (like
>> > 'true', 'false', etc.), and give them numerical indexes.

ATM:
>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/variable.html#nen -- yes.

DBH:
> Brittle.

ATM:
You are right. It is precariously brittle. That brittleness
is part of the "Grand Challenge" of building a viable AI Mind.
First we have to build a brittle one, then we must trust the
smarter-than-we-are crowd to incorporate fault-tolerance.
DBH:
> Language-specific.

ATM:
Do you mean "human-language-specific" or "programming-language"?
With programming-language variables, we have to start somewhere,
and then we let adventitious AI coders change the beginnings.
With variables that lend themselves to polyglot human languages,
we achieve two aims: AI coders in non-English-speaking lands
will feel encouraged to code an AI speaking their own language;
and AI Minds will be engendered that speak polyglot languages.
Obiter dictu -- the Mentifex "Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind" --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html -- features
a plausible explanation of how to implant multiple Chomskyan
syntaxes and multiple lexicons within one unitary AI Mind.
The AI textbook AI4U page 35 on the English language module --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/english.html -- and
the AI textbook AI4U page 77 on the Reify module --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/reify.html -- and the
AI textbook AI4U page 93 on the English bootstrap module --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/enboot.html -- all show
unique and original diagrams of an AI Mind that contains
the thinking apparatus for multiple human languages --
in other words, an AI capapble of Machine Translation (MT).

DBH:
> Non-scalable.

ATM:
Once again, we have to start somewhere. Once we attain
critical mass in freelance AI programmers, then we scale up.

DBH:
> You are trying to build something "intelligent", aren't you?

ATM:
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html -- Machine...
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- Intelligence.

DBH:
> > Then you invite programmers to add to this core by using
> > indexes above a suitable threshold, as if we were defining
> > ports on a server. [...]

ATM:
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/newcept.html#analysis
> explains that Newconcept calls the English vocabulary
> (enVocab) module to form an English lexical node for any
> new word detected by the Audition module in the stream of
> user input.


DBH:
Besides the fact that the "enVocab" module is embarrassingly
underspecified, the notion of indexing words is just silly.
ATM:
Nevertheless, here at the dawn of AI (flames? "Bring 'em on.")
we need to simulate conceptual gangs of redundant nerve fibers,
and so we resort to numeric indexing just to start somewhere.

DBH:
> If a dictionary were a database, it might be a reasonable idea.
> But trying to simulate human speech with a database-like
> dictionary is the way of symbolic AI, and the combinatorial
> nature of language is going to rear its ugly head when you try
> to scale your system to realistic proportions. Hence, why
> programs like SHRDLU were good at their blocks worlds,


http://www.semaphorecorp.com/misc/shrdlu.html -- by T. Winograd?

> but terrible at everything else. Again, a little history would
> do you well. If you want to refer to your text, let's take a
> quick look at something you wrote:


6.4. Introduce aspects of massively parallel ("maspar")
learning by letting many uniconceptual filaments on the
mindgrid coalesce into conceptual minigrids that
redundantly hold the same unitary concept as a massively
parallel aggregate with massively parallel associative tags,
so that the entire operation of the AI Mind is massively
parallel in all aspects except such bottleneck factors as
having only two eyes or two ears -- in the human tradition.

> Umm...pardon me, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.
> "uniconceptual filaments"?

ATM:
Yes. Each simulated nerve fiber holds one single concept.

> "conceptual minigrids"?

ATM:
Yes. Conceptual fibers may coalesce into a "gang" or minigrid
distributed across the entire mindgrid, for massive redundancy --
which affords security or longevity of concepts, and which
also aids in massively parallel processing (MPP).

> "massively parallel aggregate"?
> Where is the glossary for your pig Latin?
> How on earth is a programmer supposed to build a
> computational model from this fluff? Read your mind?
> She certainly can't read your text. This sounds more
> like a motivational speech from a pointy-haired boss in a
> Dilbert strip than instructions for how to build an "AI Mind".
> I would parody it, but you've done a fine job yourself.


Ha! You're funny there! <grin>

> Here's the real cheerleading right here:


Then go beyond human frailties and human limitations
by having any number ad libitum of local and remote
sensory input devices and any number of local and
remote robot embodiments and robotic motor
opportunities. Inform the robot of human bondage in
mortal bodies and of robot freedom in possibilities yet
to be imagined.

> Wow. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think I'll stay
> up another hour writing more of the Sensorium module.


>> > [...] At one point, you address programmers who might
>> > have access to a 64-bit architecture. Pardon me, but
>> > given things like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness",
>> > the size of some programmer's hardware is completely
>> > irrelevant. [...]

>>
>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/st....html#hardware
>> (q.v.) explains that not "the size of some programmer's
>> hardware" counts but rather the amount of memory
>> available to the artificial Mind.


> The amount of memory is completely irrelevant, since you
> have not given enough detail to build a working model.

ATM:
If the AI coder has an opportunity to go beyond 32-bit and
use a 64-bit machine, then he/she/it ought to do it, because
once we arrive at 64-bits (for RAM), we may stop a while.

> It's like me saying: "If you have a tokamak transverse reactor,
> then my spaceship plans will get you to Alpha Centauri in
> 8 years, but if you only have a nuclear fission drive, then it
> will take 10. Oh and drop your carrots and onions in this
> big black kettle I have here." Also, the memory space of a
> single processor really isn't that important, since a serious
> project would be designed to operate over clusters or grids
> of processors. But I suppose it never occurred to you that
> you might want an AI brain that takes advantage of more
> than one processor, huh?

ATM:
The desired "unitariness of mind" (quotes for emphasis) may
preclude using "clusters or grids of processors."

> I suppose you think the Sony
> "Emotion Engine" is what Lt. Cmdr. Data installed so he
> could feel human?


>> The Mentifex AI Mind project is extremely serious and
>> ambitious.


> There's no doubt it's ambitious. And I have no doubt that
> you believe you have really designed an AI mind. However,
> I also believe you hear voices in your head and when you
> look in the mirror you see a halo. Frankly, your theory has
> too much fibre for me to digest.


>> Free-lance coders are morking on it in C++ and other
>> languages:


> If I knew what "morking" was, I would probably agree.
> However, your first example of someone "morking" on it in
> C++ tells me that "morking" isn't really a good thing. At
> least not as far as C++ goes. Namely, it more or less proves
> that the "interest" in this project mainly consists of the blind
> being (b)led by the blind.


>> [...]
>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/vb.html -- see
>> "Mind.VB #001" link.


> This is the only sign of progress you have shown. Without
> even looking at the link, I can believe that the "VB Mind"
> already has a higher IQ than you.


>> AI Mind project news pervades the blogosphere, e.g. at
>> http://www.alpha-geek.com/2003/09/11/perl_ai.html -- etc.


> Oh, I see...so if enough people report on it, then it's "serious"
> and should be taken seriously? A lot of people reported on
> cold fusion. But I'd take the cold fusion researchers over
> you any day of the week.


>> The Mentifex Seed AI engenders a new species of mind at
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mindjava -- Mind2.Java --
>> and at other sites popping up _passim_ on the Web.


> And what, pray tell, is a "mind species"? Is it subject to
> crossover, selection, and mutation?

ATM:
http://www.seedai.e-mind.org tries to track each new species
of AI Mind. We do _not_ want standard Minds; we only wish
to have some standards in how we go about coding AI Minds.

>> AI has been solved in theory


> LOL!!!! Wow! Whatever you're smoking, it has to be
> illegal, because it's obviously great stuff!


> > and in primitive, free AI source code.


> Here is an example of "primitive, free AI source code":


> 10 PRINT "Hello, world!"


> See? It's got a speech generation and emotion engine
> built right in! And the AI is so reliable, it will never display
> a bad attitude, even if you tell it to grab you a cold one
> from the fridge. It always has a cheerful, positive
> demeanor. It is clearly self-aware, because it addresses
> others as being distinct from itself. And it has a theory of
> mind, because it knows that others expect a greeting when
> meeting for the first time. Unfortunately, it has no memory,
> so every meeting is for the first time. However, its output
> is entirely consistent, given this constraint. I guess I've
> just proved that "AI has been solved in theory"!


>> Please watch each new species of AI Mind germinate
>> and proliferate.


> I'm still waiting to see *your* mind germinate. I've watched
> grass grow faster. While ad homs are usually frowned
> upon, I don't see any harm when applied to someone who
> cannot be reasoned with anyway. Since you seem to have
> single-handedly "solved the AI problem", I'd like to ask
> you a few questions I (and I'm sure many others) have.


> 1) How does consciousness work?

ATM:
Through a "searchlight of attention". When a mind is fooled
into a sensation of consciousness, then it _is_ conscious.

> 2) Does an AI have the same feeling when it sees red
> that I do? How do we know?


ATM:
You've got me there. Qualia totally non-plus me

> 3) How are long-term memories formed?


ATM:
Probably by the lapse of time, so that STM *becomes* LTM.

> 4) How does an intelligent agent engage in abstract reasoning?


ATM:
Syllogistic reasoning is the next step, IFF we obtain funding.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - $send____.

> 5) How does language work?


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/ -- AI4U.

> 6) How do emotions work?


ATM:
By the influence of physiological "storms" upon ratiocination.

> Please don't refer me to sections of your site. I've seen
> enough of your writing to know that the answers to my
> questions cannot be found there.


> Like a typical crackpot (or charlatan), you deceive via
> misdirection. You attempt to draw attention to all the
> alleged hype surrounding your ideas without addressing
> the central issues. I challenged your entire scheme by
> claiming that minds are not blank slates, and that human


IIRC the problem was with how you stated the question.

> brains are collections of specialized problem solvers
> which must each be understood in considerable detail
> in order to produce anything remotely intelligent. You
> never gave a rebuttal, which tells me you don't have one.
> Why don't you do yourself a favor and start out by
> reading Society of Mind, by Minsky. After that, read
> any good neurobiology or neuroscience text to see just
> how "blank" your brain is when it starts out. Pinker
> has several good texts you should read. There's a
> reason why he's a professor at MIT, and you're a
> crackpot trying to con programmers into fulfilling your
> ridiculous fantasies.


> Dave


Arthur
--
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/java.html -- Java AI Weblog
http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/profile.php?id=26 - Mind-eXchange;
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html -- Goertzel on Mentifex;
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 -- ACM SIGPLAN: Mind.Forth
 
Reply With Quote
 
Terry Reedy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2003

"David B. Held" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bjuh6u$bg9$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Arthur T. Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "David B. Held" wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2003:
> > [...]


This AI thread has nothing to do with Python (or Java, and maybe not
much C++ either, that I can see). Please delete comp.lang.python (and
maybe the other languages) from any further followups. Note: googling
all newsgroups for 'Mentifex' gets over 4000 hits. I wonder if there
is really much new to say.

Terry J. Reedy


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Next Generation Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Mind - Part One - Basic Architecture and Cognitive Structure" tommak Java 2 07-04-2006 06:03 PM
"Next Generation Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Mind - Part One - Basic Architecture and Cognitive Structure" tommak Python 1 07-04-2006 09:34 AM
"Next Generation Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Mind - Part One - Basic Architecture and Cognitive Structure" tommak C++ 0 07-04-2006 05:27 AM
Standards in Artificial Intelligence Arthur T. Murray C++ 76 10-04-2003 04:39 AM
Re: Standards in Artificial Intelligence Arthur T. Murray C++ 0 09-17-2003 04:31 PM



Advertisments