> > > so some of the criticism energy around/inside me atm releates to > > > things that are technologically soudn and real, vs those that are not > > > > > > i spend a lot of time these years engaging technological fantasy, > > > because part of me has worked very very hard to prevent me having > > > skills and effectiveness. the fantasy is nicer and more helpful -- it > > > lets me defend part of my skillset so long as i don't use it > > > > but i do try to do real things to, i just have to kind of approach it > > sneakily and keep it small and rare and uncertain > > ... thought not completed > > _in other news_ maybe lets have _karl_ write a maze cutter and solver! > > this is an introductory task that is not intuitive to everyone, but i > grew up with algorithms so it used to be intuitive to me. > > i challenged a language model to do it in 4 lines. this is because of > how language models are trained. me, i could do it in four lines > _only_ if i prepared by imagining or doing it in many more lines, and > then shrunk it down. we could combine that by putting the imagination > into notes, and keep the notes in 4 lines, but it's more relevant that > how people work and what they present are different, as well as people > working differently from machines
or maybe we could move AI forward ! for some time i had two favorite contributions to opencog i would do if energy built some day: 1. it didn't have subcontexts which i think are highly important, they are a simple addition 2. it uses esoteric terms which reduces its developer base. given it's AI, all its terms are analogous to everyday concepts. i wanted to make a sugar interface that used everyday concepts so it would be intuitive to use it. of course opencog is now getting supplanted by a new language that is less flexible, the old approach of delineating the meaning of thought still needs a home
