Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Why programming languages don't AI

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 0:58

Start with one programming language assembly. Using it create a better one, BASIC using it create a better one SCHEME.

The problem is now, you cannot make a better language. One would have hoped to build onto more and more better languages that were increasingly sophisticated and expressive. Instead of this we found that everything we create in scheme is worse than scheme.

Why can't we ascend?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:13

Because programmers are shit. Notice how all of the recent technological innovations occur in hardware.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:15

Why can't we ascend?
You have no real definition on the meaning of "increasingly sophisticated and expressive". I would define that as Haskell and CL.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:18

>>3
implying we can do anything better in haskell or CL than we can with scheme

and no I'm not talking about Turing completeness you fucking retard freshmen.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:21

Take a chance. Do Prolog.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:25

CL is ugly and inelegant but it has more stuff than Scheme and it's easier to write macros.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:28

>>5
implying trying to write something in prolog isn't equivalent to trying to get a retard to do something

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:28

>>6
bitching about syntax
GTFO

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:33

>>7
It isn't.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 1:34

>>8
Scheme's retarded macros aren't an issue of syntax. They're just retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 2:16

Any idiot can get through a CS program.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 2:56

Any idiot can get a programming job.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 3:13

Any idiot can post on /prog/.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 3:52

Any idiot can.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 6:34

Why programming languages don't AI
Not sure what exactly you mean by AI, but if you do mean AGI, it's a rather complicated problem that won't just be magically solved by inventing a better language (some things could of course be made easier in some metalanguage, implemented in whatever, be it a Lisp or some ENTERPRISE language). It requires a lot of thought about actual cognitive processes, decision theory, probability and various other fields if you want to do it efficiently (on currently cheap hardware), it also requires a lot of hard work (implementing and testing ideas). There is also likely a shortcut which will yield results but requires an efficient hardware implementation (some of which are underway) by emulating large-scale neural networks found in general intelligences such as ourselves, but such shortcut may come with many costs of its own. I suppose it comes down to the usual "if only we had unlimited computational capacity and ..." or "if only we could think really hard and had a lot of time to think about the issues involved"   possibilities.

Name: sage 2011-07-12 7:28

Has anyone implemented David Moon's PLOT?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 9:32

You are now smelling manually

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 10:31

>>14
Yes, he can.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 10:39

>>4,7-8
Fuck off and learn how to quote.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 10:45

>>8
Lisp has no syntax.  You have no anus and you must defecate.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 10:46

the hard AI hoax was made to scam rich but stupid people out of their funds.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 10:57

>>21
dirty asocial neckbeards as con artists? hahaha

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 11:13

>>22
Never underestimate the gullibility of rich people hahaha!

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-12 14:21

everything we create in scheme is worse than scheme.
Because Scheme is shit.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List