From: Michael Roy Ames (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 17:02:24 MST
(Referring to a transactional paradigm for AI)
This is same conclusion I came to when 'playing' with AI designs. Once I
got down to actually imagining how I was going to monitor, to debug, to
adjust the parameters on-the-fly, to recover-from-failure, etc. ... well, a
lot of unworkable 'mind' ideas got tossed out. What was left had an - how
can I say it - unglamorous overhead. But I thought it was *doable*.
> Of course, the transaction architecture is just a start, right?
Yeah... but an important start. Without that start, you would just have to
backtrack and retrofit everything once you tried to 'go distributed'.
> The bottom line seems to be: No one is going to supply an off-the-shelf
> testing/monitoring package suitable for distributed Real AI purposes. We
> will have to build one ourselves.
Yep. A "Console" for Real AI. Gotta have it.
It would be a good idea to make this as 'general' a solution as possible, to
allow flexibility in adapting as our AI theories of 'what works' get tested
(and thrown out 8D). Not to mention it being easier to start a commercial
off-shoot of the product if it is coded fairly generally.
> Hence, it seems likely that each would-be Real AI project, as it goes
> distributed, will have to tackle this problem on its own!
The sooner we tackle it the better IMO. You mentioned many times, when
recounting the difficulties/fun of the Webmind project, that 'parameter
tuning' was difficult and time-consuming. The Console concept is
just-the-thing to make this easy(ier). You could also use it to pound-away
at the models with thousands of test scenarios. And as a debugging tool: to
'step-through' the transactions, inspecting as you go.
Roll on big daddy.
Michael Roy Ames.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT