[fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?

[Dan Melchione]

Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?

[Alan Kay]

Hi Dan

It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. 

Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.

Cheers,

Alan


________________________________
From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
To: ***@vpri.org
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Haven't seen much regarding this for a while.  Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?

[Kevin Driedger]

Alan,

Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?


]{evin ])riedger


On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Dan
>
> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>
> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
> time for the last 5-6 months.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
> or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Alan Kay]

Hi Kevin

At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and get the report on the Viewpoints server.

Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project would be to do Nile in the Chrome "Native Client" to get a usable speedy and very compact graphics system for web based systems.)

Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of Javascript, and we've been learning a lot about this variant of stream-based FRP as it is able to work within "someone else's implementation of a language".

A lot of work on the "cooperating solvers" part of STEPS is going on (this was an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original proposal).

We are taking another pass at the "interoperating alien modules" problem that was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around to trying to make progress on it.

And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated end-user systems (especially including children) with the "deep systems" projects, and we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.

A fair amount of time is being put into "problem finding" (the basic idea is that initially trying to manifest "visions" of desirable future states is better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good visions will often help "problem finding" which can then be the context for picking actual goals).

And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments for research.

Cheers

Alan



________________________________
From: Kevin Driedger <linuxbox+***@gmail.com>
To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Alan,

Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?



]{evin ])riedger



On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Dan
>
>
>It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. 
>
>
>Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>To: ***@vpri.org
>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>Haven't seen much regarding this for a while.  Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>
_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[karl ramberg]

So what will computing be in a hundred years?
Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface one
letter at a time ?
And what systems will we use ? And for what ?
Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our
breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2 ?

What are the future man using computers for ?

Karl


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Kevin
>
> At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and
> get the report on the Viewpoints server.
>
> Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
> probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project
> would be to do Nile in the Chrome "Native Client" to get a usable speedy
> and very compact graphics system for web based systems.)
>
> Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of
> Javascript, and we've been learning a lot about this variant of
> stream-based FRP as it is able to work within "someone else's
> implementation of a language".
>
> A lot of work on the "cooperating solvers" part of STEPS is going on (this
> was an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original proposal).
>
> We are taking another pass at the "interoperating alien modules" problem
> that was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around
> to trying to make progress on it.
>
> And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated
> end-user systems (especially including children) with the "deep systems"
> projects, and we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.
>
> A fair amount of time is being put into "problem finding" (the basic idea
> is that initially trying to manifest "visions" of desirable future states
> is better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good
> visions will often help "problem finding" which can then be the context for
> picking actual goals).
>
> And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments for
> research.
>
> Cheers
>
> Alan
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Kevin Driedger <linuxbox+***@gmail.com>
> *To:* Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <
> ***@vpri.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Alan,
>
> Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?
>
>
> ]{evin ])riedger
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan
>
> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>
> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
> time for the last 5-6 months.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
> or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[David Barbour]

> what will computing be in a hundred years?

We'll have singularity - i.e. software and technology will be developed by
AIs. But there will also be a lot of corporate influence on which direction
that goes; there will likely be repeated conflicts regarding privacy,
ownership, computational rights, the issue of 'patents' and 'copyrights' in
a world with high-quality 3D printers, high quality scanners, and
AI-created technologies. As always, big companies with deep pockets will
hang on through legal actions, lobbying, lashing out at the people and
suppressing what some people will argue to be rights or freedoms.

Computing will be much more widespread. Sensors and interactive elements
will be ubiquitous in our environments, whether we like them or not.
(Already, a huge portion of the population carries a multi-purpose sensor
device... smartphone. Later, they'll be out of the pockets, on the heads,
active all the time.) Before singularity, we'll be able to program
on-the-fly, while walking around, using augmented reality, gestures or
words, even pen-and-paper [1]. After singularity, programming will be aided
heavily by AI even when we want to write our own. Mr. Clippy might have
more street smarts and degrees than you.

And, yeah, we'll have lots of video games. Procedural generation is already
a thing - creating worlds larger than any human could. With AI support, we
can actually create on-the-fly, creative content - e.g. like a team of
dungeon live masters dedicated to keeping the story interesting, and
keeping you on the border between addicted and terrified (or whatever
experience the game designer decides for you).

Best,

Dave

[1]
http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/programming-with-augmented-reality/




On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, karl ramberg <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> So what will computing be in a hundred years?
> Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface
> one letter at a time ?
> And what systems will we use ? And for what ?
> Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our
> breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2 ?
>
> What are the future man using computers for ?
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kevin
>>
>> At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and
>> get the report on the Viewpoints server.
>>
>> Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
>> probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project
>> would be to do Nile in the Chrome "Native Client" to get a usable speedy
>> and very compact graphics system for web based systems.)
>>
>> Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of
>> Javascript, and we've been learning a lot about this variant of
>> stream-based FRP as it is able to work within "someone else's
>> implementation of a language".
>>
>> A lot of work on the "cooperating solvers" part of STEPS is going on
>> (this was an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original
>> proposal).
>>
>> We are taking another pass at the "interoperating alien modules" problem
>> that was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around
>> to trying to make progress on it.
>>
>> And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated
>> end-user systems (especially including children) with the "deep systems"
>> projects, and we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.
>>
>> A fair amount of time is being put into "problem finding" (the basic idea
>> is that initially trying to manifest "visions" of desirable future states
>> is better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good
>> visions will often help "problem finding" which can then be the context for
>> picking actual goals).
>>
>> And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments
>> for research.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Kevin Driedger <linuxbox+***@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <
>> ***@vpri.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> Alan,
>>
>> Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?
>>
>>
>> ]{evin ])riedger
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dan
>>
>> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
>> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>>
>> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
>> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
>> time for the last 5-6 months.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>> *To:* ***@vpri.org
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>> *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
>> or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Carl Gundel]

We will have singularity and real AI? We may indeed, or perhaps the last 50 years will replay itself. Progress in artificial intelligence has moved along at a fraction of expectations.



I expect that there will be an incredible increase of eye candy, and when you strip it down to the bottom there will still be languages derived from Java, C, Python, BASIC, etc.


-Carl



From: fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] On Behalf Of David Barbour
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



> what will computing be in a hundred years?



We'll have singularity - i.e. software and technology will be developed by AIs. But there will also be a lot of corporate influence on which direction that goes; there will likely be repeated conflicts regarding privacy, ownership, computational rights, the issue of 'patents' and 'copyrights' in a world with high-quality 3D printers, high quality scanners, and AI-created technologies. As always, big companies with deep pockets will hang on through legal actions, lobbying, lashing out at the people and suppressing what some people will argue to be rights or freedoms.



Computing will be much more widespread. Sensors and interactive elements will be ubiquitous in our environments, whether we like them or not. (Already, a huge portion of the population carries a multi-purpose sensor device... smartphone. Later, they'll be out of the pockets, on the heads, active all the time.) Before singularity, we'll be able to program on-the-fly, while walking around, using augmented reality, gestures or words, even pen-and-paper [1]. After singularity, programming will be aided heavily by AI even when we want to write our own. Mr. Clippy might have more street smarts and degrees than you.



And, yeah, we'll have lots of video games. Procedural generation is already a thing - creating worlds larger than any human could. With AI support, we can actually create on-the-fly, creative content - e.g. like a team of dungeon live masters dedicated to keeping the story interesting, and keeping you on the border between addicted and terrified (or whatever experience the game designer decides for you).



Best,



Dave



[1] http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/programming-with-augmented-reality/







On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, karl ramberg <***@gmail.com> wrote:

So what will computing be in a hundred years?

Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface one letter at a time ?

And what systems will we use ? And for what ?

Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2 ?



What are the future man using computers for ?



Karl



On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Kevin



At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and get the report on the Viewpoints server.



Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project would be to do Nile in the Chrome "Native Client" to get a usable speedy and very compact graphics system for web based systems.)



Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of Javascript, and we've been learning a lot about this variant of stream-based FRP as it is able to work within "someone else's implementation of a language".



A lot of work on the "cooperating solvers" part of STEPS is going on (this was an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original proposal).



We are taking another pass at the "interoperating alien modules" problem that was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around to trying to make progress on it.



And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated end-user systems (especially including children) with the "deep systems" projects, and we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.



A fair amount of time is being put into "problem finding" (the basic idea is that initially trying to manifest "visions" of desirable future states is better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good visions will often help "problem finding" which can then be the context for picking actual goals).



And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments for research.



Cheers



Alan





_____

From: Kevin Driedger <linuxbox+***@gmail.com <mailto:linuxbox%***@gmail.com> >
To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Alan,



Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?






]{evin ])riedger



On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Dan



It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.



Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.



Cheers,



Alan



_____

From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
To: ***@vpri.org
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?



_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
***@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc




_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
***@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

[David Barbour]

I doubt there will be a clear instant of "oh, this, just now, was
singularity". The ability even of a great AI to improve technologies is
limited by its ability to hypothesize and experiment, and understand
requirements. More likely, we'll see a lot of "automated thinking"
(constraint solvers, probabilistic models, weighted logics, genetic
programming) slowly take over aspects of different products and tasks.
Indeed, I'm already seeing this. What humans might call 'real AI' will
initially just be the human interfaces - the pieces that automate call
centers, or support interactive storytelling.

Singularity won't be instantaneous from the POV of the people living within
it. Though, it might seem that way from a future historian's perspective.

I've been fascinated by the progress in machine learning and deep learning
over just the last few years. If you haven't followed them, there have been
quite a few strides forward over the last six years or so, in part due to
new processing technologies (programmable GPUs, et al.) and in part due to
new ways of thinking about algorithms (not really 'new' but they take some
time to gain traction) - e.g. the more recent focus on deep learning, and
alternatives to backwards propagation such as using genetic programming to
set weights and connectivity in neural networks.

Regarding the language under-the-hood: If we want to automate software
development, we would gain a great deal of efficiency and robustness by
focusing on languages whose programs are easy to evaluate, and that will
(a) be meaningful/executable by construction, and (b) avoid redundant
meanings (aka full abstraction, or near enough). Even better if the
languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily
sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I imagine a developer who favors such
languages would have an advantage over one who sticks with C.

Though, it might still compile to C.



On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com> wrote:

> We will have singularity and real AI? We may indeed, or perhaps the last
> 50 years will replay itself. Progress in artificial intelligence has moved
> along at a fraction of expectations.****
>
> ** **
>
> I expect that there will be an incredible increase of eye candy, and when
> you strip it down to the bottom there will still be languages derived from
> Java, C, Python, BASIC, etc.****
>
>
> -Carl****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Barbour
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 03, 2013 3:50 PM
>
> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?****
>
> ** **
>
> > what will computing be in a hundred years? ****
>
> ** **
>
> We'll have singularity - i.e. software and technology will be developed by
> AIs. But there will also be a lot of corporate influence on which direction
> that goes; there will likely be repeated conflicts regarding privacy,
> ownership, computational rights, the issue of 'patents' and 'copyrights' in
> a world with high-quality 3D printers, high quality scanners, and
> AI-created technologies. As always, big companies with deep pockets will
> hang on through legal actions, lobbying, lashing out at the people and
> suppressing what some people will argue to be rights or freedoms. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Computing will be much more widespread. Sensors and interactive elements
> will be ubiquitous in our environments, whether we like them or not.
> (Already, a huge portion of the population carries a multi-purpose sensor
> device... smartphone. Later, they'll be out of the pockets, on the heads,
> active all the time.) Before singularity, we'll be able to program
> on-the-fly, while walking around, using augmented reality, gestures or
> words, even pen-and-paper [1]. After singularity, programming will be aided
> heavily by AI even when we want to write our own. Mr. Clippy might have
> more street smarts and degrees than you.****
>
> ** **
>
> And, yeah, we'll have lots of video games. Procedural generation is
> already a thing - creating worlds larger than any human could. With AI
> support, we can actually create on-the-fly, creative content - e.g. like a
> team of dungeon live masters dedicated to keeping the story interesting,
> and keeping you on the border between addicted and terrified (or whatever
> experience the game designer decides for you). ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Dave****
>
> ** **
>
> [1]
> http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/programming-with-augmented-reality/
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, karl ramberg <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> So what will computing be in a hundred years? ****
>
> Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface
> one letter at a time ?****
>
> And what systems will we use ? And for what ?****
>
> Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our
> breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2 ?****
>
> ** **
>
> What are the future man using computers for ?****
>
> ** **
>
> Karl****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:****
>
> Hi Kevin****
>
> ** **
>
> At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and
> get the report on the Viewpoints server.****
>
> ** **
>
> Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
> probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project
> would be to do Nile in the Chrome "Native Client" to get a usable speedy
> and very compact graphics system for web based systems.)****
>
> ** **
>
> Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of
> Javascript, and we've been learning a lot about this variant of
> stream-based FRP as it is able to work within "someone else's
> implementation of a language".****
>
> ** **
>
> A lot of work on the "cooperating solvers" part of STEPS is going on (this
> was an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original proposal).**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> We are taking another pass at the "interoperating alien modules" problem
> that was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around
> to trying to make progress on it.****
>
> ** **
>
> And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated
> end-user systems (especially including children) with the "deep systems"
> projects, and we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> A fair amount of time is being put into "problem finding" (the basic idea
> is that initially trying to manifest "visions" of desirable future states
> is better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good
> visions will often help "problem finding" which can then be the context for
> picking actual goals).****
>
> ** **
>
> And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments for
> research.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> ** **
>
> Alan****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Kevin Driedger <linuxbox+***@gmail.com>
> *To:* Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <
> ***@vpri.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?****
>
> ** **
>
> Alan,****
>
> ** **
>
> Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
>
> ****
>
> ]{evin ])riedger****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:****
>
> Hi Dan****
>
> ** **
>
> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
> time for the last 5-6 months.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Alan****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?****
>
> ** **
>
> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
> or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
> ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Casey Ransberger]

I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below...

On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated.

I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH.

My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness."

I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages.

[Brian Rice]

With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative
language like Joy.

APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify.


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger
<***@gmail.com>wrote:

> I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important
> context. My words below...
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic
> programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated.
>
> I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in
> any language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're
> looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH.
>
> My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of
> recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness."
>
> I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are
> conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting
> work done with one of the logic languages.
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>



--
-Brian T. Rice

[David Barbour]

Factor would be another decent example of a concatenative language.

But I think arrowized programming models would work better. They aren't
limited to a stack, and instead can compute rich types that can be
evaluated as documents or diagrams. Further, they're really easy to model
in a concatenative language. Further, subprograms can interact through the
arrow's model - e.g. sharing data or constraints - thus operating like
agents in a multi-agent system; we could feasibly model 'chromosomes' in
terms of different agents.

I've recently (mid August) started developing a language that has these
properties: arrowized, strongly typed, concatenative, reactive. I'm already
using Prolog to find functions to help me bootstrap (it seems bootstrap
functions are not always the most intuitive :). I look forward to trying
some genetic programming, once I'm further along.

Best,

Dave


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a
> concatenative language like Joy.
>
> APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger <***@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important
>> context. My words below...
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic
>> programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated.
>>
>> I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in
>> any language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're
>> looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH.
>>
>> My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of
>> recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness."
>>
>> I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that
>> are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen
>> interesting work done with one of the logic languages.
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Brian T. Rice
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Casey Ransberger]

Sorry, I've missed a beat somewhere. "Arrowized?" What's this bit with arrows?

I saw the term arrow earlier and I think I've assumed that it was some slang for the FRP thing (if you think about it, that makes some sense.) But starting with intuitive assumptions is usually a bad plan, so I'd love some clarification if possible.

On Sep 3, 2013, at 5:30 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Factor would be another decent example of a concatenative language.
>
> But I think arrowized programming models would work better. They aren't limited to a stack, and instead can compute rich types that can be evaluated as documents or diagrams. Further, they're really easy to model in a concatenative language. Further, subprograms can interact through the arrow's model - e.g. sharing data or constraints - thus operating like agents in a multi-agent system; we could feasibly model 'chromosomes' in terms of different agents.
>
> I've recently (mid August) started developing a language that has these properties: arrowized, strongly typed, concatenative, reactive. I'm already using Prolog to find functions to help me bootstrap (it seems bootstrap functions are not always the most intuitive :). I look forward to trying some genetic programming, once I'm further along.
>
> Best,
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative language like Joy.
>
> APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below...
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated.
>
> I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH.
>
> My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness."
>
> I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages.
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> --
> -Brian T. Rice
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

[David Barbour]

Arrows are essentially a formalization of box-and-wire paradigms.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_arrows

Arrows represent a rigid structure for dataflow, but are just expressive
enough for non-linear composition of subprograms (i.e. parallel pipelines
that branch and merge). One might consider this a bitter-sweet spot. For
some people, it's too rigid. Fortunately, we can add just a little more
flexibility:

1) runtime-configurable boxes/arrows, that might even take another
box/arrow as input
2) metaprogramming - components execute in earlier stage than the runtime
arrows

I support both, but metaprogramming is my preferred approach to
flexibility. Box-and-wire paradigms, even arrows, usually run into a
problem where they get unwieldy for a single human to construct - too much
wiring, too much tweaking, too much temptation to bypass the model (e.g.
using a database or tuple space) to integrate different subprograms because
we don't want wires all over the place. Metaprogramming overcomes those
limitations, and enables structured approaches to deep entanglement where
we need them. :)

Best,

Dave



On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Casey Ransberger
<***@gmail.com>wrote:

> Sorry, I've missed a beat somewhere. "Arrowized?" What's this bit with
> arrows?
>
> I saw the term arrow earlier and I think I've assumed that it was some
> slang for the FRP thing (if you think about it, that makes some sense.) But
> starting with intuitive assumptions is usually a bad plan, so I'd love some
> clarification if possible.
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 5:30 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Factor would be another decent example of a concatenative language.
>
> But I think arrowized programming models would work better. They aren't
> limited to a stack, and instead can compute rich types that can be
> evaluated as documents or diagrams. Further, they're really easy to model
> in a concatenative language. Further, subprograms can interact through the
> arrow's model - e.g. sharing data or constraints - thus operating like
> agents in a multi-agent system; we could feasibly model 'chromosomes' in
> terms of different agents.
>
> I've recently (mid August) started developing a language that has these
> properties: arrowized, strongly typed, concatenative, reactive. I'm already
> using Prolog to find functions to help me bootstrap (it seems bootstrap
> functions are not always the most intuitive :). I look forward to trying
> some genetic programming, once I'm further along.
>
> Best,
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a
>> concatenative language like Joy.
>>
>> APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger <
>> ***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped
>>> important context. My words below...
>>>
>>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic
>>> programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated.
>>>
>>> I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in
>>> any language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're
>>> looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH.
>>>
>>> My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of
>>> recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness."
>>>
>>> I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that
>>> are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen
>>> interesting work done with one of the logic languages.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fonc mailing list
>>> ***@vpri.org
>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Brian T. Rice
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Casey Ransberger]

Yes, in the case of FORTH, the concatenative property is what's interesting in this regard.

It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting. I have to admit no real familiarity with APL (outside of some stunningly elegant solutions I've read to problems on Project Euler!)

Thanks for letting me know that there's a familial relationship with FORTH and APL, Brian:)

Also, genetic programming in a Prolog? Anyone?

On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative language like Joy.
>
> APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below...
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated.
>
> I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH.
>
> My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness."
>
> I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages.
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> --
> -Brian T. Rice
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

[John Carlson]

On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.

Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed
operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but
with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was
running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range
and set notation.

Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?

[John Carlson]

I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program
was running.

I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."
On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.
>
> Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed
> operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but
> with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was
> running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range
> and set notation.
>
> Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?
>

[Simon Forman]

On 9/3/13, Casey Ransberger <***@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic
>> programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated.
>
> I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any
> language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're
> looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH.
>
> My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of
> recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness."
>
> I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are
> conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting
> work done with one of the logic languages.


There is a (the?) universal logical notation being elucidated right now that seems to me to be very promising for this sort of stuff.

It is extremely simple yet very powerful (elegant) and it renders logic, circuits, and prolog-ish automated reasoning in a straightforward manner.

The roots of it go back to the later work of Charles Sanders Peirce, and was first written up in the iconoclastic "Laws of Form" by George Spencer-Brown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form

Several people have been working with it: http://lawsofform.org/people.html

See especially:

http://markability.net/
http://www.boundary.org/bi/index.html
http://www.lawsofform.org/
http://www.boundarymath.org/
http://wbricken.com/
http://iconicmath.com/


I'm interested in it for three reasons: 1) It reveals interesting aspects of logical thought. 2) It's extremely easy to teach and learn. 3) I suspect it will be ideal for e.g. Gödel Machines.

Warm regards,
~Simon

--
http://twitter.com/SimonForman
My blog: http://firequery.blogspot.com/
Also my blog: http://calroc.blogspot.com/



"The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of
an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that
restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the
crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than
like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."
--H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:28:52PM -0700, Simon Forman wrote:

> There is a (the?) universal logical notation being elucidated right now that seems to me to be very promising for this sort of stuff.

Is it intrinsically massively parallel? If it isn't, it's probably
not going to go places.

[Chris Warburton]

Eugen Leitl <***@leitl.org> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:28:52PM -0700, Simon Forman wrote:
>
>> There is a (the?) universal logical notation being elucidated right now that seems to me to be very promising for this sort of stuff.
>
> Is it intrinsically massively parallel? If it isn't, it's probably
> not going to go places.

I don't think I've ever seen a logical framework which isn't
intrinsically massively parallel; ie. it seems to me like sequencing is
always an explicit construct, whether it's applicative functors, arrows,
monads, linear/uniqueness types, etc.

There are cases like Prolog and Pure where the evaluation/search order
is defined, but I would still represent sequences of instructions using
something like a list (applicative functor) or tree (free monad),
freeing up implementations to find the elements in parallel whilst
ensuring they're executed in sequence. Maybe I've been using Haskell for
too long? ;)

Cheers,
Chris

[Simon Forman]

On 09/05/2013 at 4:05 AM, "Eugen Leitl" <***@leitl.org> wrote:
>
>On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:28:52PM -0700, Simon Forman wrote:
>
>> There is a (the?) universal logical notation being elucidated
>right now that seems to me to be very promising for this sort of
>stuff.
>
>Is it intrinsically massively parallel?

Yes. ;-)

[Casey Ransberger]

John, you're right. I have seen raw binary used as DNA and I left that out.
This could be my own prejudice, but it seems like a messy way to do things.
I suppose I want to limit what the animal can do by constraining it to some
set of "safe" primitives. Maybe that's a silly thing to worry about,
though. If we're going to grow software, I suppose maybe I should expect
the process to be as messy as life is:)


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program
> was running.
>
> I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."
> On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.
>>
>> Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed
>> operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but
>> with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was
>> running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range
>> and set notation.
>>
>> Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>


--
CALIFORNIA
H U M A N

[David Barbour]

Life is, in some ways, less "messy" than binary. At least less fragile. DNA
cannot encode absolute offsets, for example. Closer to associative memory.

In any case, we want to reach useful solutions quickly. Life doesn't evolve
at a scale commensurate with human patience, despite having vastly more
parallelism and memory. So we need to design systems more efficient, and
perhaps more specialized, than life.
On Sep 4, 2013 5:37 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> John, you're right. I have seen raw binary used as DNA and I left that
> out. This could be my own prejudice, but it seems like a messy way to do
> things. I suppose I want to limit what the animal can do by constraining it
> to some set of "safe" primitives. Maybe that's a silly thing to worry
> about, though. If we're going to grow software, I suppose maybe I should
> expect the process to be as messy as life is:)
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program
>> was running.
>>
>> I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."
>> On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.
>>>
>>> Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed
>>> operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but
>>> with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was
>>> running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range
>>> and set notation.
>>>
>>> Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> CALIFORNIA
> H U M A N
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Carl Gundel]

Design systems that are more efficient than life? More efficient in what ways, for what purposes? For the purposes of computing? Can we define what computing should become? We are only touching the hem of the garment, I think. ;-)



-Carl



From: fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] On Behalf Of David Barbour
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:05 AM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Life is, in some ways, less "messy" than binary. At least less fragile. DNA cannot encode absolute offsets, for example. Closer to associative memory.

In any case, we want to reach useful solutions quickly. Life doesn't evolve at a scale commensurate with human patience, despite having vastly more parallelism and memory. So we need to design systems more efficient, and perhaps more specialized, than life.

On Sep 4, 2013 5:37 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

John, you're right. I have seen raw binary used as DNA and I left that out. This could be my own prejudice, but it seems like a messy way to do things. I suppose I want to limit what the animal can do by constraining it to some set of "safe" primitives. Maybe that's a silly thing to worry about, though. If we're going to grow software, I suppose maybe I should expect the process to be as messy as life is:)



On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:

I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program was running.

I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."

On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:


On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.

Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range and set notation.

Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?


_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
***@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc







--

CALIFORNIA

H U M A N

[David Barbour]

If you treat computing that reverently, you'll never improve it.


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com> wrote:

> Design systems that are more efficient than life? More efficient in what
> ways, for what purposes? For the purposes of computing? Can we define
> what computing should become? We are only touching the hem of the garment,
> I think. ;-)****
>
> ** **
>
> -Carl****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Barbour
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:05 AM
>
> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?****
>
> ** **
>
> Life is, in some ways, less "messy" than binary. At least less fragile.
> DNA cannot encode absolute offsets, for example. Closer to associative
> memory.****
>
> In any case, we want to reach useful solutions quickly. Life doesn't
> evolve at a scale commensurate with human patience, despite having vastly
> more parallelism and memory. So we need to design systems more efficient,
> and perhaps more specialized, than life.****
>
> On Sep 4, 2013 5:37 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> John, you're right. I have seen raw binary used as DNA and I left that
> out. This could be my own prejudice, but it seems like a messy way to do
> things. I suppose I want to limit what the animal can do by constraining it
> to some set of "safe" primitives. Maybe that's a silly thing to worry
> about, though. If we're going to grow software, I suppose maybe I should
> expect the process to be as messy as life is:)****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program
> was running.****
>
> I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."****
>
> On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:****
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> > It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.****
>
> Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed
> operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but
> with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was
> running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range
> and set notation.****
>
> Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> CALIFORNIA****
>
> H U M A N****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc****
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Carl Gundel]

I’m not sure why you think I’m attributing special reverence to computing. Break all the rules, please. ;-)



The claim that life is somehow inefficient so that computing should be different begs for qualification. I’m sure there are a lot of ideas that can be gleaned for future computing technologies by studying biology, but living things are not computers in the sense of what people mean when they use the term computer. It’s apples and oranges.



-Carl



From: fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] On Behalf Of David Barbour
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:39 AM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



If you treat computing that reverently, you'll never improve it.



On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com> wrote:

Design systems that are more efficient than life? More efficient in what ways, for what purposes? For the purposes of computing? Can we define what computing should become? We are only touching the hem of the garment, I think. ;-)



-Carl



From: fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] On Behalf Of David Barbour
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:05 AM


To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Life is, in some ways, less "messy" than binary. At least less fragile. DNA cannot encode absolute offsets, for example. Closer to associative memory.

In any case, we want to reach useful solutions quickly. Life doesn't evolve at a scale commensurate with human patience, despite having vastly more parallelism and memory. So we need to design systems more efficient, and perhaps more specialized, than life.

On Sep 4, 2013 5:37 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

John, you're right. I have seen raw binary used as DNA and I left that out. This could be my own prejudice, but it seems like a messy way to do things. I suppose I want to limit what the animal can do by constraining it to some set of "safe" primitives. Maybe that's a silly thing to worry about, though. If we're going to grow software, I suppose maybe I should expect the process to be as messy as life is:)



On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:

I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program was running.

I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."

On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:


On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.

Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range and set notation.

Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?


_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
***@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc







--

CALIFORNIA

H U M A N

[David Harris]

I would say that 'life' as we know, and understand, it has 'chosen'
robustness and redundancy instead of efficiency. It doesn't matter how
efficient you *were* if one glitch kills you. I used quotes are because I
am anthromorphizing evolution. It seems to me that some of the ideas here
are approaching the same ideas ... glom together stauff that works, even if
it not the most efficient solution, but good enough. Choose you goals
wisely.

David



On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com> wrote:

> I’m not sure why you think I’m attributing special reverence to
> computing. Break all the rules, please. ;-)****
>
> ** **
>
> The claim that life is somehow inefficient so that computing should be
> different begs for qualification. I’m sure there are a lot of ideas that
> can be gleaned for future computing technologies by studying biology, but
> living things are not computers in the sense of what people mean when they
> use the term computer. It’s apples and oranges. ****
>
> ** **
>
> -Carl****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Barbour
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:39 AM
> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?****
>
> ** **
>
> If you treat computing that reverently, you'll never improve it.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Design systems that are more efficient than life? More efficient in what
> ways, for what purposes? For the purposes of computing? Can we define
> what computing should become? We are only touching the hem of the garment,
> I think. ;-)****
>
> ****
>
> -Carl****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Barbour
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:05 AM****
>
>
> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?****
>
> ****
>
> Life is, in some ways, less "messy" than binary. At least less fragile.
> DNA cannot encode absolute offsets, for example. Closer to associative
> memory.****
>
> In any case, we want to reach useful solutions quickly. Life doesn't
> evolve at a scale commensurate with human patience, despite having vastly
> more parallelism and memory. So we need to design systems more efficient,
> and perhaps more specialized, than life.****
>
> On Sep 4, 2013 5:37 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> John, you're right. I have seen raw binary used as DNA and I left that
> out. This could be my own prejudice, but it seems like a messy way to do
> things. I suppose I want to limit what the animal can do by constraining it
> to some set of "safe" primitives. Maybe that's a silly thing to worry
> about, though. If we're going to grow software, I suppose maybe I should
> expect the process to be as messy as life is:)****
>
> ****
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program
> was running.****
>
> I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."****
>
> On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:****
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> > It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.****
>
> Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed
> operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but
> with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was
> running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range
> and set notation.****
>
> Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> CALIFORNIA****
>
> H U M A N****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[David Barbour]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com> wrote:

> I’m not sure why you think I’m attributing special reverence to
> computing. Break all the rules, please. ;-)
>

To say you're "touching the hem" generally implies you're also on your
knees and bowing your head.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> The claim that life is somehow inefficient so that computing should be
> different begs for qualification. I’m sure there are a lot of ideas that
> can be gleaned for future computing technologies by studying biology, but
> living things are not computers in the sense of what people mean when they
> use the term computer. It’s apples and oranges.
>

I agree we can gain some inspirations from life. Genetic programming,
neural networks, the development of robust systems in terms of reactive
cycles, focus on adaptive rather than abstractive computation.

But it's easy to forget that life had millions or billions of years to get
where it's at, and that it has burned through materials, that it fails to
recognize the awesomeness of many of the really cool 'programs' it has
created (like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ;).

A lot of logic must be encoded in the heuristic to evaluate some programs
as better than others. It can be difficult to recognize value that one did
not anticipate finding. It can be difficult to recognize how a particular
mutation might evolve into something great, especially if it causes
problems in the short term. The search space is unbelievably large, and it
can take a long time to examine it.

It isn't a matter of life being 'inefficient'. It's that, if we want to use
this 'genetic programming' technique that life used to create cool things
like Mozart, we need to be vastly more efficient than life at searching the
spaces, developing value, recognizing how small things might contribute to
a greater whole and thus should be preserved. In practice, this will often
require very special-purpose applications - e.g. "genetic programming for
the procedural generation of cities in a video game" might use a completely
different set of primitives than "genetic programming for the facial
structures and preferred behaviors/habits of NPCs" (and it still wouldn't
be easy to decide whether a particular habit contributes value).

Machine code - by which I mean x86 code and similar - would be a terribly
inefficient way to obtain value using genetic programming. It is far too
fragile (breaks easily under minor mutations), too fine grained (resulting
in a much bigger search space), and far too difficult to evaluate.

Though, we could potentially create a virtual-machine code suitable for
genetic programming.

[Carl Gundel]

By touching the hem in this sense I meant that we’ve got a blindfold on and we’re trying to guess what the elephant looks like by touching any one part of it.



-Carl



From: fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] On Behalf Of David Barbour
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:16 PM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?





On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com> wrote:

I’m not sure why you think I’m attributing special reverence to computing. Break all the rules, please. ;-)



To say you're "touching the hem" generally implies you're also on your knees and bowing your head.

[David Barbour]

Ah. Perhaps a more direct reference to the elephant would have worked
better. :)

Yeah, I'll grant the metaphor that we have a lot of different people
focused on different parts of the computational elephant.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com> wrote:

> By touching the hem in this sense I meant that we’ve got a blindfold on
> and we’re trying to guess what the elephant looks like by touching any one
> part of it.****
>
> ** **
>
> -Carl****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* fonc-***@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-***@vpri.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Barbour
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:16 PM
>
> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Carl Gundel <***@psychesystems.com>
> wrote:****
>
> I’m not sure why you think I’m attributing special reverence to
> computing. Break all the rules, please. ;-)****
>
> ** **
>
> To say you're "touching the hem" generally implies you're also on your
> knees and bowing your head.****
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[John Carlson]

On Sep 5, 2013 11:18 AM, "David Barbour" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> But it's easy to forget that life had millions or billions of years to
get where it's at, and that it has burned through materials, that it fails
to recognize the awesomeness of many of the really cool 'programs' it has
created (like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ;).

We recognize mozart and copy him, and innovate on top of him like EMI and
Emily did or could. I believe our culture lives in a bit of paranoia about
accepting others programs, and that's where we fail. We also think that
government research should not compete with commercial interests--at least
when research is being done by a nonprofit.

Has anyone done research on improving programs? I know of some where you
try to find bugs in programs. What about actually detecting and replacing
or improving algorithms?

[David Barbour]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone done research on improving programs? I know of some where you
> try to find bugs in programs. What about actually detecting and replacing
> or improving algorithms?
>
Juergen's work on the Goedel machine seems related.

As does Adam Chlipala's work on Bedrock, and the use of tactics for
automated theorem proving.

My own interests don't really touch the idea of "continuous
self-improvement at runtime" of the code itself, but I do like applying
that idea to weighted constraint models (e.g. for on-the-fly planning
systems or temporal constraint systems), albeit with some extra weight on
the current solution to provide some inertia (so changes are smooth rather
than turbulent). I've contemplated use of such constraint systems in the
development of linkers, but this is more for robust adaptivity than for
improving algorithms.

[John Carlson]

On Sep 5, 2013 11:57 AM, "David Barbour" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone done research on improving programs? I know of some where
you try to find bugs in programs. What about actually detecting and
replacing or improving algorithms?
>
> Juergen's work on the Goedel machine seems related.

I had stumbled upon Juergen's page a few years ago. Thanks for the
reminder. I'm still trying to figure out how to apply it.

[John Carlson]

So I guess I would apply a goedel machine by looking at http request and
response or sql*net request and response. Is there a goedel machine that
work on 2 inputs and 2 outputs, or do you just label them, reducing the
number of inputs and outputs?
On Sep 5, 2013 12:22 PM, "John Carlson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 5, 2013 11:57 AM, "David Barbour" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Has anyone done research on improving programs? I know of some where
> you try to find bugs in programs. What about actually detecting and
> replacing or improving algorithms?
> >
> > Juergen's work on the Goedel machine seems related.
>
> I had stumbled upon Juergen's page a few years ago. Thanks for the
> reminder. I'm still trying to figure out how to apply it.
>

[Chris Warburton]

John Carlson <***@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sep 5, 2013 11:57 AM, "David Barbour" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anyone done research on improving programs? I know of some where
> you try to find bugs in programs. What about actually detecting and
> replacing or improving algorithms?
>>
>> Juergen's work on the Goedel machine seems related.
>
> I had stumbled upon Juergen's page a few years ago. Thanks for the
> reminder. I'm still trying to figure out how to apply it.

His more-recent PowerPlay system is a bit more practical; it's like a
Goedel machine but applies improvements as soon as they're shown to
solve a previously-unsolvable problem; it doesn't bother with universal
optimality.

It's been applied to neural networks so far, but I think it would be
useful to apply to a theorem prover: generate theorems you can't prove,
along with improved search procedures which can prove them.

Cheers,
Chris

[Chris Warburton]

David Barbour <***@gmail.com> writes:

> I agree we can gain some inspirations from life. Genetic programming,
> neural networks, the development of robust systems in terms of reactive
> cycles, focus on adaptive rather than abstractive computation.
>
> But it's easy to forget that life had millions or billions of years to get
> where it's at, and that it has burned through materials, that it fails to
> recognize the awesomeness of many of the really cool 'programs' it has
> created (like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ;).

Artificial neural networks and genetic programming are often grouped
together, eg. as "nature-inspired optimisation", but it's important to
keep in mind that their natural counterparts work on very different
timescales. Neural networks can take a person's lifetime to become
proficient at some task, but genetics can take a planet's lifetime ;)
(of course, there has been a lot of overlap as brains are the product of
evolution and organisms must compete in a world full of brains).

> A lot of logic must be encoded in the heuristic to evaluate some programs
> as better than others. It can be difficult to recognize value that one did
> not anticipate finding. It can be difficult to recognize how a particular
> mutation might evolve into something great, especially if it causes
> problems in the short term. The search space is unbelievably large, and it
> can take a long time to examine it.

There is interesting work going on in "artificial curiosity", where
regular rewards/fitness/reinforcement is treated as "external", but
there is also an "internal" reward, usually based on finding new
patterns and how to predict/compress them. In theory this rewards a
system for learning more about its domain, regardless of whether it
leads to an immediate increase in the given fitness function.

There are some less drastic departures from GP like Fitness Uniform
Optimisation, which values population diversity rather than high
fitness: we only need one fit individual, the rest can explore.

Bayesian Exploration is also related: which addresses the
exploration/exploitation problem explicitly by assuming that a more-fit
solution exists and choosing our next candidate based on the highest
expected fitness (this is known as 'optimism').

These algorithms attempt to value unique/novel solutions, which may
contribute to solving 'deceptive' problems; where high-fitness solutions
may be surrounded by low-fitness ones.

> It isn't a matter of life being 'inefficient'. It's that, if we want to use
> this 'genetic programming' technique that life used to create cool things
> like Mozart, we need to be vastly more efficient than life at searching the
> spaces, developing value, recognizing how small things might contribute to
> a greater whole and thus should be preserved. In practice, this will often
> require very special-purpose applications - e.g. "genetic programming for
> the procedural generation of cities in a video game" might use a completely
> different set of primitives than "genetic programming for the facial
> structures and preferred behaviors/habits of NPCs" (and it still wouldn't
> be easy to decide whether a particular habit contributes value).

You're dead right, but at the same time these kind of situations make me
instinctively want to go up a level and solve the meta-problem. If I
were programming Java, I'd want a geneticProgrammingFactory ;)

> Machine code - by which I mean x86 code and similar - would be a terribly
> inefficient way to obtain value using genetic programming. It is far too
> fragile (breaks easily under minor mutations), too fine grained (resulting
> in a much bigger search space), and far too difficult to evaluate.

True. 'Optimisation' is often seen as the quest to get closer to machine
code, when actually there are potentially bigger gains to be had by
working at a level where we know enough about our code to eliminate lots
of it. For example all of the "fusion" work going on in Haskell, or even
something as everyday as constant folding. Whilst humans can scoff that
'real' programmers would have written their assembly with all of these
optimisations already-applied, it's far more likely that auto-generated
code will be full of such high-level optimisation potentials. For
example, we could evolve programs using an interpreter until they reach
a desired fitness, then compile the best solution with a
highly-aggressive optimising compiler for use in production.

> Though, we could potentially create a virtual-machine code suitable for
> genetic programming.

This will probably be the best option for most online adaptation, where
the system continues to learn over the course of its life. The search
must use high-level code to be efficient, but compiling every candidate
when most will only be run once usually won't be worth it.

The counter-examples are where evaluation takes long enough to offset the
initial compilation cost, and problems where compiler optimisations can
have a significant effect on fitness (eg. heavy time-dependence).

It is also possible to have a hybrid, where we compile/optimise
solutions when they remain the fittest for some length of time. This is
similar to Hutter Search, which is a hypothetical online learner with
one process that runs the current-best solution and another process
which tries to find a better solution, replacing the first process if it
does so.

Cheers,
Chris

[David Barbour]

All very good points, Chris.


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Chris Warburton
<***@googlemail.com>wrote:

> David Barbour <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I agree we can gain some inspirations from life. Genetic programming,
> > neural networks, the development of robust systems in terms of reactive
> > cycles, focus on adaptive rather than abstractive computation.
> >
> > But it's easy to forget that life had millions or billions of years to
> get
> > where it's at, and that it has burned through materials, that it fails to
> > recognize the awesomeness of many of the really cool 'programs' it has
> > created (like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ;).
>
> Artificial neural networks and genetic programming are often grouped
> together, eg. as "nature-inspired optimisation", but it's important to
> keep in mind that their natural counterparts work on very different
> timescales. Neural networks can take a person's lifetime to become
> proficient at some task, but genetics can take a planet's lifetime ;)
> (of course, there has been a lot of overlap as brains are the product of
> evolution and organisms must compete in a world full of brains).
>
> > A lot of logic must be encoded in the heuristic to evaluate some programs
> > as better than others. It can be difficult to recognize value that one
> did
> > not anticipate finding. It can be difficult to recognize how a particular
> > mutation might evolve into something great, especially if it causes
> > problems in the short term. The search space is unbelievably large, and
> it
> > can take a long time to examine it.
>
> There is interesting work going on in "artificial curiosity", where
> regular rewards/fitness/reinforcement is treated as "external", but
> there is also an "internal" reward, usually based on finding new
> patterns and how to predict/compress them. In theory this rewards a
> system for learning more about its domain, regardless of whether it
> leads to an immediate increase in the given fitness function.
>
> There are some less drastic departures from GP like Fitness Uniform
> Optimisation, which values population diversity rather than high
> fitness: we only need one fit individual, the rest can explore.
>
> Bayesian Exploration is also related: which addresses the
> exploration/exploitation problem explicitly by assuming that a more-fit
> solution exists and choosing our next candidate based on the highest
> expected fitness (this is known as 'optimism').
>
> These algorithms attempt to value unique/novel solutions, which may
> contribute to solving 'deceptive' problems; where high-fitness solutions
> may be surrounded by low-fitness ones.
>
> > It isn't a matter of life being 'inefficient'. It's that, if we want to
> use
> > this 'genetic programming' technique that life used to create cool things
> > like Mozart, we need to be vastly more efficient than life at searching
> the
> > spaces, developing value, recognizing how small things might contribute
> to
> > a greater whole and thus should be preserved. In practice, this will
> often
> > require very special-purpose applications - e.g. "genetic programming for
> > the procedural generation of cities in a video game" might use a
> completely
> > different set of primitives than "genetic programming for the facial
> > structures and preferred behaviors/habits of NPCs" (and it still wouldn't
> > be easy to decide whether a particular habit contributes value).
>
> You're dead right, but at the same time these kind of situations make me
> instinctively want to go up a level and solve the meta-problem. If I
> were programming Java, I'd want a geneticProgrammingFactory ;)
>
> > Machine code - by which I mean x86 code and similar - would be a terribly
> > inefficient way to obtain value using genetic programming. It is far too
> > fragile (breaks easily under minor mutations), too fine grained
> (resulting
> > in a much bigger search space), and far too difficult to evaluate.
>
> True. 'Optimisation' is often seen as the quest to get closer to machine
> code, when actually there are potentially bigger gains to be had by
> working at a level where we know enough about our code to eliminate lots
> of it. For example all of the "fusion" work going on in Haskell, or even
> something as everyday as constant folding. Whilst humans can scoff that
> 'real' programmers would have written their assembly with all of these
> optimisations already-applied, it's far more likely that auto-generated
> code will be full of such high-level optimisation potentials. For
> example, we could evolve programs using an interpreter until they reach
> a desired fitness, then compile the best solution with a
> highly-aggressive optimising compiler for use in production.
>
> > Though, we could potentially create a virtual-machine code suitable for
> > genetic programming.
>
> This will probably be the best option for most online adaptation, where
> the system continues to learn over the course of its life. The search
> must use high-level code to be efficient, but compiling every candidate
> when most will only be run once usually won't be worth it.
>
> The counter-examples are where evaluation takes long enough to offset the
> initial compilation cost, and problems where compiler optimisations can
> have a significant effect on fitness (eg. heavy time-dependence).
>
> It is also possible to have a hybrid, where we compile/optimise
> solutions when they remain the fittest for some length of time. This is
> similar to Hutter Search, which is a hypothetical online learner with
> one process that runs the current-best solution and another process
> which tries to find a better solution, replacing the first process if it
> does so.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>

[John Nilsson]

Even if the different domains are different it should still be possible to
generalize the basic framework and strategy used.
I imagine layers of models each constrained by the upper metamodel and a
fitness function feeding a generator to create the next layer down until
you reach the bottom executable layer.
In a sense this is what humans do no? Begin with the impact map model ,
derive from that an activity model, derive from that a high level activity
support model, derive from that acceptance criteria, derive from that
acceptance test examples, derive from that a low level interaction state
machine an so on...

In the human case I belive the approach modelled by the kanban katas seems
appropriate. Nested stacks of hypotheses to try in a disciplined PDCA
cycle.

BR
John

[John Carlson]

What is an impact map model? Is it something like a use case?
On Sep 5, 2013 12:33 PM, "John Nilsson" <***@milsson.nu> wrote:

> Even if the different domains are different it should still be possible to
> generalize the basic framework and strategy used.
> I imagine layers of models each constrained by the upper metamodel and a
> fitness function feeding a generator to create the next layer down until
> you reach the bottom executable layer.
> In a sense this is what humans do no? Begin with the impact map model ,
> derive from that an activity model, derive from that a high level activity
> support model, derive from that acceptance criteria, derive from that
> acceptance test examples, derive from that a low level interaction state
> machine an so on...
>
> In the human case I belive the approach modelled by the kanban katas seems
> appropriate. Nested stacks of hypotheses to try in a disciplined PDCA
> cycle.
>
> BR
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[John Nilsson]

In a sense, but on a higher level, it's more focused on the stretegic
desgin.

http://impactmapping.org/drawing.php

Also take a look at for related modelling technique
http://www.b-mc2.com/2013/04/26/from-business-strategy-to-solution-a-unified-conceptual-framework/

And for that matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_processes_%28theory_of_constraints%29


BR,
John


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM, John Carlson <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> What is an impact map model? Is it something like a use case?
> On Sep 5, 2013 12:33 PM, "John Nilsson" <***@milsson.nu> wrote:
>
>> Even if the different domains are different it should still be possible
>> to generalize the basic framework and strategy used.
>> I imagine layers of models each constrained by the upper metamodel and a
>> fitness function feeding a generator to create the next layer down until
>> you reach the bottom executable layer.
>> In a sense this is what humans do no? Begin with the impact map model ,
>> derive from that an activity model, derive from that a high level activity
>> support model, derive from that acceptance criteria, derive from that
>> acceptance test examples, derive from that a low level interaction state
>> machine an so on...
>>
>> In the human case I belive the approach modelled by the kanban katas
>> seems appropriate. Nested stacks of hypotheses to try in a disciplined PDCA
>> cycle.
>>
>> BR
>> John
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Chris Warburton]

John Nilsson <***@milsson.nu> writes:

> Even if the different domains are different it should still be possible to
> generalize the basic framework and strategy used.
> I imagine layers of models each constrained by the upper metamodel and a
> fitness function feeding a generator to create the next layer down until
> you reach the bottom executable layer.
> In a sense this is what humans do no? Begin with the impact map model ,
> derive from that an activity model, derive from that a high level activity
> support model, derive from that acceptance criteria, derive from that
> acceptance test examples, derive from that a low level interaction state
> machine an so on...
>
> In the human case I belive the approach modelled by the kanban katas seems
> appropriate. Nested stacks of hypotheses to try in a disciplined PDCA
> cycle.

The problem with (naively) adding meta-levels is that our costs go up
dramatically. Using your example, we might define a test suite and
evolve a state-machine which passes all the tests. We might then decide
to replace our hard-coded tests with a higher-level optimisation
process: we define our acceptance criteria and evolve a test suite for
those criteria and a state-machine for those tests.

This is much more expensive, since in order to evaluate a test suite we
need to evolve a state-machine for it. Likewise, if we add another level
and define, say, a model of our business and market, we could evolve
product features based on their predicted return on investment.
Evaluating each potential feature would require we evolve the acceptance
criteria for its implementation; each candidate set of acceptance
criteria requires its own evolved test suite; each candidate test suite
requires an evolved state-machine.

When we consider that realistic optimisation algorithms can require
upwards of a million fitness evaluations, it's clear that we can't
naively bolt extra meta-levels on when we get stuck.

There are ways around this though, by collapsing the levels into one
self-improving level or two co-evolving levels. An example of a
one-level system is evolving an economy of virtual agents, where rewards
come in the form of virtual currency which can be used to bid for CPU
time. Bankrupt agents can be discarded and currency/CPU time can be
traded between agents. This allows meta-agents to make a living by
spotting opportunities for the other agents. Any agent which is too meta
to be worth it will either go bankrupt or will be out-bidded by more
efficient less-meta agents. One example is the Hayak Machine.

This can be augmented by techniques like autoconstructive evolution,
where the process for generating new agents is part of the agents
themselves, and thus can evolve.

Co-evolving systems use each other as their meta-level. For example,
we might let each system play a zero-sum game involving the problem
domain (this rewards learning more about the domain); we might have one
system pose questions/problems for the other to solve (again, rewarding
domain knowledge); we might have each system predict the other's
behaviour and give reward based on unpredictability (rewarding novelty
and exploration).

I highly recommend Juergen's publications page, which covers many
different optimisation algorithms:
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/onlinepub.html

On a related not I've been making some toy implementations of many
optimisation algorithms in Javascript (some are still empty):
http://chriswarbo.net/index.php?page=cedi&type=misc&id=1%2F4%2F28%2F29

Cheers,
Chris

[John Nilsson]

Check out http://www.cat-language.com/

BR
John

Skickat från min iPhone

4 sep 2013 kl. 01:43 skrev Casey Ransberger <***@gmail.com>:

> I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below...
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated.
>
> I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH.
>
> My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness."
>
> I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages.
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

[Chris Warburton]

David Barbour <***@gmail.com> writes:

> Regarding the language under-the-hood: If we want to automate software
> development, we would gain a great deal of efficiency and robustness by
> focusing on languages whose programs are easy to evaluate, and that will
> (a) be meaningful/executable by construction, and (b) avoid redundant
> meanings (aka full abstraction, or near enough). Even better if the
> languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily
> sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I imagine a developer who favors such
> languages would have an advantage over one who sticks with C.

My interest in Programming Language Theory sprang from my interest in AI
and code generation (things like the Goedel Machine which Simon
mentioned), specifically what makes a language easy/hard to use by a
machine.

Regarding 'syntaxless' languages, I agree that this is a desirable
property for the IR of a program-generator. Due to the combinatorial
nature of the problem, we need all the efficiency we can get. Removing
syntax can improve this by dramatically reducing the search space
without sacrificing potential solutions.

However, there can often be a semantic cost in trying to assign meaning
to arbitrary combinations of tokens. This can complicate the runtime
(eg. using different stacks for different datatypes) and require
arbitrary/ad-hoc rules and special-cases (eg. empty stacks).

These can make the landscape smoother, but lead to larger solutions (in
bits), which is the dominant factor on scaling. It can also make
learning/reasoning about the language and problem domain harder for
meta-level algorithms, eg. Estimation of Distribution.

I think this semantic cost is often not appreciated, since it's hidden
in the running time rather than being immediately apparent like
malformed programs are. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if we
hit millions of syntax errors if we get good quality solutions in an
acceptable amount of time. It may be the case that telling our
algorithms when they're making no sense will give them the information
they need to find better solutions faster.

Cheers,
Chris

[David Barbour]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Chris Warburton
<***@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
> there can often be a semantic cost in trying to assign meaning

to arbitrary combinations of tokens. This can complicate the runtime
> (eg. using different stacks for different datatypes) and require
> arbitrary/ad-hoc rules and special-cases (eg. empty stacks).
>

The concatenative language I'm developing uses multiple stacks, but it's
about "different stacks for different tasks". I think this works well
conceptually, when dealing with concurrent dataflows or workflows.


>
> I think this semantic cost is often not appreciated, since it's hidden
> in the running time rather than being immediately apparent like
> malformed programs are.


Eh, that isn't an issue, really. Creating strongly type-safe concatenative
languages (where types are fully inferred) isn't difficult. We can ensure
it is "immediately apparent" that programs are malformed without actually
running them.

[Chris Warburton]

David Barbour <***@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Chris Warburton
> <***@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>
>> there can often be a semantic cost in trying to assign meaning
>
> to arbitrary combinations of tokens. This can complicate the runtime
>> (eg. using different stacks for different datatypes) and require
>> arbitrary/ad-hoc rules and special-cases (eg. empty stacks).
>>
>
> The concatenative language I'm developing uses multiple stacks, but it's
> about "different stacks for different tasks". I think this works well
> conceptually, when dealing with concurrent dataflows or workflows.

The system I had in mind when I wrote this was the "Push 3"
language, which is designed for genetic programming. Its types are
integers, booleans, floats and code, and to prevent type errors like
"true 5 +" it uses a different stack for each type, so in that example
"true" will be pushed to the boolean stack, "5" will be pushed on to the
integer stack and "+" will act on the integer stack (or float stack,
depending whether we write "INTEGER.+" or "FLOAT.+"). Unfortunately this
leads to a proliferation of stack-manipulation functions; by my
reckoning there are 54 primitives (9 instructions * 6 stacks, including
the NAME and EXEC stacks). It also makes polymorphism impossible (eg. a
generic + for floats and ints).

>> I think this semantic cost is often not appreciated, since it's hidden
>> in the running time rather than being immediately apparent like
>> malformed programs are.
>
>
> Eh, that isn't an issue, really. Creating strongly type-safe concatenative
> languages (where types are fully inferred) isn't difficult. We can ensure
> it is "immediately apparent" that programs are malformed without actually
> running them.

I agree that we can catch erroneous programs statically, if the language
allows errors. However, many languages designed for genetic programming
actually get rid of errors completely (eg. by skipping nonsensical
instructions); I was pointing out how this can cause inefficiencies,
despite it narrowing-down the search space.

Push 3 pays by having longer encodings, which requires the search to
correctly set more bits. Since this price is paid by every token in
every candidate, it can impact scaling.

Choosing concatenative and syntax-free languages is probably a good
choice for generating programs since it removes the possibility of
syntax errors, but removing the possibility of errors completely isn't
always a good thing. We could even use multiple machine-readable error
messages (eg. numbered errors) to give information to a meta-learning
layer about what it's doing wrong.

Cheers,
Chris

[David Barbour]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Chris Warburton
<***@googlemail.com>wrote:

> to prevent type errors like "true 5 +" it uses a different stack for each
> type


I think these errors might not be essential to prevent. But we might want
to support some redundant structure, i.e. something like 'genes' where
multiple agents contribute to a property, such that if some of them error
out they don't ruin the entire model.

If we think in terms of a code-base, consider each sample in the population
having two definitions for each word in the code-base. Each time we use a
word, we apply both definitions, and if one of them doesn't make sense we
discard it; if both make some sense, we combine the results in some simple
way. The 'words' in this case would be like genes, and we could easily
model sexual recombinations.

Usefully, we could also model hierarchical 'stages' such that lower-level
words use primitives, but higher-level words use lower-level words. This
would allow us to scale upwards: codons, proteins, organelles, cells,
organs, etc.

Anyhow, there are a lot of directions we can take such things. Avoiding
type-errors isn't the main issue; I think keeping it simple and supporting
some redundancy is much more useful. But favoring a simpler programming
model - e.g. one with only integers, and where the only operation is to add
or compare them -might also help.


>
> many languages designed for genetic programming
> actually get rid of errors completely (eg. by skipping nonsensical
> instructions);


I see. If you want to avoid errors completely, it is always possible to
ensure consistent input and output types for each named 'gene' or 'codon',
while allowing many implementations. The lowest level genes or codons could
be automatically generated outside the normal genetic mechanism (using
brute-force logic to find instances of a type), and occasionally injected
into a few members of the population (to model mutations and such).

Best,

Dave

[Chris Warburton]

David Barbour <***@gmail.com> writes:

> But favoring a simpler programming model - e.g. one with only
> integers, and where the only operation is to add or compare them
> -might also help.

If the problem domain is X then I agree a minimal X-specific DSL is a
good idea, although purely numeric problems are often amenable to more
direct solutions; eg. dynamic programming, gradient-based methods, etc.

Cheers,
Chris

[David Barbour]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Chris Warburton
<***@googlemail.com>wrote:

> David Barbour <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > But favoring a simpler programming model - e.g. one with only
> > integers, and where the only operation is to add or compare them
> > -might also help.
>
> If the problem domain is X then I agree a minimal X-specific DSL is a
> good idea, although purely numeric problems are often amenable to more
> direct solutions; eg. dynamic programming, gradient-based methods, etc.
>

A rather nice property: given any general purpose concatenative language,
we can create a DSL for genetic programming by developing a set of
high-level words... then using those as the primitives for the GP.

The main issue, I think, is a more flexible environment model. The "stack"
doesn't offer very flexible interactions. A document (zipper) or graph
could be modeled as an object on the stack, though.

Best,

Dave

[Paul Dubs]

Hello Alan,
I'm wondering, is there any progress on the report? Or have I missed the
publication?

Cheers,
Paul


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Kevin
>
> At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and
> get the report on the Viewpoints server.
>
> Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
> probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project
> would be to do Nile in the Chrome "Native Client" to get a usable speedy
> and very compact graphics system for web based systems.)
>
> Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of
> Javascript, and we've been learning a lot about this variant of
> stream-based FRP as it is able to work within "someone else's
> implementation of a language".
>
> A lot of work on the "cooperating solvers" part of STEPS is going on (this
> was an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original proposal).
>
> We are taking another pass at the "interoperating alien modules" problem
> that was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around
> to trying to make progress on it.
>
> And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated
> end-user systems (especially including children) with the "deep systems"
> projects, and we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.
>
> A fair amount of time is being put into "problem finding" (the basic idea
> is that initially trying to manifest "visions" of desirable future states
> is better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good
> visions will often help "problem finding" which can then be the context for
> picking actual goals).
>
> And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments for
> research.
>
> Cheers
>
> Alan
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Kevin Driedger <linuxbox+***@gmail.com>
> *To:* Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <
> ***@vpri.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Alan,
>
> Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?
>
>
> ]{evin ])riedger
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan
>
> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>
> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
> time for the last 5-6 months.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
> or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Jonathan Edwards]

That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a
problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems
to work on or are you soliciting proposals?

Jonathan


From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
> Hi Dan
>
> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>
> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
> time for the last 5-6 months.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
> or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Alan Kay]

Hi Jonathan

We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.

Cheers,

Alan


________________________________
From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
To: ***@vpri.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals?

Jonathan



From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>Cc: 
>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>Hi Dan
>
>
>It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. 
>
>
>Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>To: ***@vpri.org
>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>Haven't seen much regarding this for a while.  Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Tristan Slominski]

Hey Alan,

With regards to "burning issues" and "better directions", I want to
highlight the "communicating with aliens" problem as worth of remembering.
Machines figuring out on their own a protocol and goals for communication.
This might relate to "cooperating solvers" aspect of your work.

Cheers,

Tristan


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan
>
> We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of
> others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a
> problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems
> to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
> Hi Dan
>
> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>
> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
> time for the last 5-6 months.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
> or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Alan Kay]

Yes, the "communication with aliens" problem -- in many different aspects -- is going to be a big theme for VPRI over the next few years.

Cheers,

Alan


________________________________
From: Tristan Slominski <***@gmail.com>
To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Hey Alan,

With regards to "burning issues" and "better directions", I want to highlight the "communicating with aliens" problem as worth of remembering. Machines figuring out on their own a protocol and goals for communication. This might relate to "cooperating solvers" aspect of your work.

Cheers,

Tristan



On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Jonathan
>
>
>We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
>To: ***@vpri.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>>Cc: 
>>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>Hi Dan
>>
>>
>>It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. 
>>
>>
>>Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>>To: ***@vpri.org
>>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>>Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>
>>
>>Haven't seen much regarding this for a while.  Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Paul Homer]

Hi Alan,

I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but individually people still make important choices based on too little knowledge.


In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would have made normally.


To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but I've always thought it was possible...

Paul.




>________________________________
> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>Hi Jonathan
>
>
>We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
>To: ***@vpri.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>>Cc: 
>>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>Hi Dan
>>
>>
>>It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. 
>>
>>
>>Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>>To: ***@vpri.org
>>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>>Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>
>>
>>Haven't seen much regarding this for a while.  Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>

[Alan Kay]

Hi Paul

I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view, and I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in this direction.

However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire and environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here -- but it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly.

Best wishes,

Alan


________________________________
From: Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Hi Alan,

I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but individually people still make important choices based on too little knowledge.


In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would have made normally.


To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but I've always thought it was possible...

Paul.




>________________________________
> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>Hi Jonathan
>
>
>We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
>To: ***@vpri.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>>Cc: 
>>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>Hi Dan
>>
>>
>>It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. 
>>
>>
>>Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>>To: ***@vpri.org
>>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>>Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>
>>
>>Haven't seen much regarding this for a while.  Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>

[Paul Homer]

Hi Alan,

I agree that there is, and probably will always be, a necessity to 'think outside of the box', although if the box was larger, it would be less necessary. But I wasn't really thinking about scientists and the pursuit of new knowledge, but rather the trillions? of mundane decisions that people regularly make on a daily basis.

A tool like Wikipedia really helps in being able to access a refined chunk of knowledge, but the navigation and categorization are statically defined. Sometimes what I am trying to find is spread horizontally across a large number of pages. If, as a simple example, a person could have a dynamically generated Wikipedia page created just for them that factored in their current knowledge and the overall context of the situation then they'd be able to utilize that knowledge more appropriately. They could still choose to skim or ignore it, but if they wanted a deeper understanding, they could read the compiled research in a few minutes.

The Web, particularly for programmers, has been a great tease for this. You can look up any coding example instantly (although you do have to sort through the bad examples and misinformation). The downside is that I find it far more common for people to not really understanding what is actually happening underneath, but I suspect that that is driven by increasing time pressures and expectations rather than but a shift in the way we relate to knowledge.

What I think would really help is not just to allow access to the breadth of knowledge, but to also enable individuals to get to the depth as well. Also the ability to quickly recognize lies, myths, propaganda, etc.

Paul.

Sent from my iPad

On 2013-09-08, at 7:12 AM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul
>
> I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view, and I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in this direction.
>
> However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire and environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here -- but it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alan
>
> From: Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
> To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but individually people still make important choices based on too little knowledge.
>
> In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would have made normally.
>
> To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but I've always thought it was possible...
>
> Paul.
>
> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Hi Jonathan
>
> We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
> To: ***@vpri.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
> Hi Dan
>
> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>
> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
> To: ***@vpri.org
> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
> Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>

[Alan Kay]

Hi Paul

When I said "even scientists go against their training" I was also pointing out really deep problems in humanity's attempts at thinking (we are quite terrible thinkers!).


If we still make most decisions without realizing why, and use conventional "thinking tools" as ways to rationalize them, then technologists providing vastly more efficient, wide and deep, sources for rationalizing is the opposite of a great gift.

Imagine a Google that also retrieves counter-examples. Or one that actively tries to help find chains of reasoning that are based on principles one -- or others -- claim to hold. Or one that looks at the system implications of local human desires and actions.

Etc.

I'm guessing that without a lot of training, most humans would not choose to use a real "thinking augmenter".

Best wishes,

Alan


________________________________
From: Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
Cc: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?



Hi Alan,

I agree that there is, and probably will always be, a necessity to 'think outside of the box', although if the box was larger, it would be less necessary. But I wasn't really thinking about scientists and the pursuit of new knowledge, but rather the trillions? of mundane decisions that people regularly make on a daily basis. 

A tool like Wikipedia really helps in being able to access a refined chunk of knowledge, but the navigation and categorization are statically defined. Sometimes what I am trying to find is spread horizontally across a large number of pages. If, as a simple example, a person could have a dynamically generated Wikipedia page created just for them that factored in their current knowledge and the overall context of the situation then they'd be able to utilize that knowledge more appropriately. They could still choose to skim or ignore it, but if they wanted a deeper understanding, they could read the compiled research in a few minutes. 

The Web, particularly for programmers, has been a great tease for this. You can look up any coding example instantly (although you do have to sort through the bad examples and misinformation). The downside is that I find it far more common for people to not really understanding what is actually happening underneath, but I suspect that that is driven by increasing time pressures and expectations rather than but a shift in the way we relate to knowledge.

What I think would really help is not just to allow access to the breadth of knowledge, but to also enable individuals to get to the depth as well. Also the ability to quickly recognize lies, myths, propaganda, etc. 

Paul.

Sent from my iPad

On 2013-09-08, at 7:12 AM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


Hi Paul
>
>
>I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view, and I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in this direction.
>
>
>However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire and environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here -- but it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly.
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
>To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>Hi Alan,
>
>
>I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but individually people still make important choices based on too little knowledge.
>
>
>
>In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would have made normally.
>
>
>
>To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but I've always thought it was possible...
>
>
>Paul.
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Jonathan
>>
>>
>>We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
>>To: ***@vpri.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>
>>
>>That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>>
>>
>>Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>>>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>>>Cc: 
>>>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>>
>>>Hi Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. 
>>>
>>>
>>>Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>>>To: ***@vpri.org
>>>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>>>Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Haven't seen much regarding this for a while.  Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>fonc mailing list
>>>***@vpri.org
>>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>fonc mailing list
>>>***@vpri.org
>>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[John Carlson]

I have a pretty good example of this. I would like to look up whether
there's a difference between cigarettes and e-cigarettes for short and long
term health. I know people who experience weight gain on e-cigarettes, and
lose weight on regular cigarettes.
On Sep 8, 2013 9:46 AM, "Alan Kay" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul
>
> When I said "even scientists go against their training" I was also
> pointing out really deep problems in humanity's attempts at thinking (we
> are quite terrible thinkers!).
>
> If we still make most decisions without realizing why, and use
> conventional "thinking tools" as ways to rationalize them, then
> technologists providing vastly more efficient, wide and deep, sources for
> rationalizing is the opposite of a great gift.
>
> Imagine a Google that also retrieves counter-examples. Or one that
> actively tries to help find chains of reasoning that are based on
> principles one -- or others -- claim to hold. Or one that looks at the
> system implications of local human desires and actions.
>
> Etc.
>
> I'm guessing that without a lot of training, most humans would not choose
> to use a real "thinking augmenter".
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
> *To:* Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 8, 2013 7:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> I agree that there is, and probably will always be, a necessity to 'think
> outside of the box', although if the box was larger, it would be less
> necessary. But I wasn't really thinking about scientists and the pursuit of
> new knowledge, but rather the trillions? of mundane decisions that people
> regularly make on a daily basis.
>
> A tool like Wikipedia really helps in being able to access a refined chunk
> of knowledge, but the navigation and categorization are statically defined.
> Sometimes what I am trying to find is spread horizontally across a large
> number of pages. If, as a simple example, a person could have a dynamically
> generated Wikipedia page created just for them that factored in their
> current knowledge and the overall context of the situation then they'd be
> able to utilize that knowledge more appropriately. They could still choose
> to skim or ignore it, but if they wanted a deeper understanding, they could
> read the compiled research in a few minutes.
>
> The Web, particularly for programmers, has been a great tease for this.
> You can look up any coding example instantly (although you do have to sort
> through the bad examples and misinformation). The downside is that I find
> it far more common for people to not really understanding what is actually
> happening underneath, but I suspect that that is driven by increasing time
> pressures and expectations rather than but a shift in the way we relate to
> knowledge.
>
> What I think would really help is not just to allow access to the breadth
> of knowledge, but to also enable individuals to get to the depth as well.
> Also the ability to quickly recognize lies, myths, propaganda, etc.
>
> Paul.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 2013-09-08, at 7:12 AM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul
>
> I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view,
> and I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in
> this direction.
>
> However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and
> especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their
> training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire
> and environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here --
> but it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
> *To:* Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <
> ***@vpri.org>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I
> think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but
> individually people still make important choices based on too little
> knowledge.
>
> In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of
> 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards
> reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by
> individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the
> classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence
> by giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding.
> Not a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can
> be used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual
> would have made normally.
>
> To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It
> needs to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It
> can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it
> appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the
> ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural
> model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a
> long way off, but I've always thought it was possible...
>
> Paul.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Hi Jonathan
>
> We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of
> others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a
> problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems
> to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
> Hi Dan
>
> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>
> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
> time for the last 5-6 months.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
> *To:* ***@vpri.org
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
> or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> ***@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>

[Paul Homer]

Hi Alan,

Is the gift really that bad? It certainly is an interesting question.

I'm a frequent blogger on the topic of what could probably be described as the ongoing 'software crisis'. We definitely build bigger systems these days, but the quality has likely been declining. There is great software out there, but the world is littered with lots of partially working code that causes lots of problems.

Perhaps one could lay this on the feet of better documentation. That is, when I started coding it was hard to find out any information so I spent a lot of time just playing with the underlying pieces to really understand them and figure out how to use them appropriately. These days, the "kids" do a quick google, then just copy&paste the results into the code base, mostly unaware of what the underlying 'magic' instructions actually do. So example code is possibly a bad thing?

But even if that's true, we've let the genie out of the bottle and he is't going back in. To fix the quality of software, for example, we can't just ban all cut&paste-able web pages. I definitely agree that we're terrible thinkers, and that for the most part as a species we are self-absorbed and often lazy, so I don't really expect that most programmers will have the same desire that I did to get down to really understanding the details. That type of curiosity is rare.

The alternate route out of the problem is to exploit these types of human deficiencies. If some programmers just want to cut&paste, then perhaps all we can do is too just make sure that what they are using is high enough quality. If someday they want more depth, then it should be available in easily digestible forms, even if few will ever travel that route.

If most people really don't want to think deeply about about their problems, then I think that the best we can do is ensure that their hasty decisions are based on as accurate knowledge as possible. It's far better than them just flipping a coin. In a sense it moves up our decision making to a higher level of abstraction. Some people lose the 'why' of the decision, but their underlying choice ultimately is superior, and the 'why' can still be found by doing digging into the data. In a way, isn't that what we've already done with micro-code, chips and assembler? Or machinery? Gradually we move up towards broader problems...


Paul.

Sent from my iPad

On 2013-09-08, at 10:45 AM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul
>
> When I said "even scientists go against their training" I was also pointing out really deep problems in humanity's attempts at thinking (we are quite terrible thinkers!).
>
> If we still make most decisions without realizing why, and use conventional "thinking tools" as ways to rationalize them, then technologists providing vastly more efficient, wide and deep, sources for rationalizing is the opposite of a great gift.
>
> Imagine a Google that also retrieves counter-examples. Or one that actively tries to help find chains of reasoning that are based on principles one -- or others -- claim to hold. Or one that looks at the system implications of local human desires and actions.
>
> Etc.
>
> I'm guessing that without a lot of training, most humans would not choose to use a real "thinking augmenter".
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alan
>
> From: Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
> To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
> Cc: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 7:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> I agree that there is, and probably will always be, a necessity to 'think outside of the box', although if the box was larger, it would be less necessary. But I wasn't really thinking about scientists and the pursuit of new knowledge, but rather the trillions? of mundane decisions that people regularly make on a daily basis.
>
> A tool like Wikipedia really helps in being able to access a refined chunk of knowledge, but the navigation and categorization are statically defined. Sometimes what I am trying to find is spread horizontally across a large number of pages. If, as a simple example, a person could have a dynamically generated Wikipedia page created just for them that factored in their current knowledge and the overall context of the situation then they'd be able to utilize that knowledge more appropriately. They could still choose to skim or ignore it, but if they wanted a deeper understanding, they could read the compiled research in a few minutes.
>
> The Web, particularly for programmers, has been a great tease for this. You can look up any coding example instantly (although you do have to sort through the bad examples and misinformation). The downside is that I find it far more common for people to not really understanding what is actually happening underneath, but I suspect that that is driven by increasing time pressures and expectations rather than but a shift in the way we relate to knowledge.
>
> What I think would really help is not just to allow access to the breadth of knowledge, but to also enable individuals to get to the depth as well. Also the ability to quickly recognize lies, myths, propaganda, etc.
>
> Paul.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 2013-09-08, at 7:12 AM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul
>>
>> I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view, and I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in this direction.
>>
>> However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire and environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here -- but it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> From: Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
>> To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but individually people still make important choices based on too little knowledge.
>>
>> In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would have made normally.
>>
>> To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but I've always thought it was possible...
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> Hi Jonathan
>>
>> We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
>> To: ***@vpri.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>> Cc:
>> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>> Hi Dan
>>
>> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>>
>> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>> To: ***@vpri.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>> Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Chris Warburton]

Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> writes:

> When I said "even scientists go against their training" I was also
> pointing out really deep problems in humanity's attempts at thinking
> (we are quite terrible thinkers!).

I think a quite modest improvement would be more powerful
calculators. For example, we already augment our arithmetic when we go
shopping, why don't we augment our statistical ability when making
judgements? We can be bad at estimating probabilities, but we're far
worse at combining them correctly; for example the common error of not
taking into account population bias when interpreting test results[1].

If we carried around a statistical calculator app with a simple UI
(eg. graphs, tiles and sliders; not RPN) then we can enter numbers
individually and have the device carry out the tricky combinations for
us. When we don't need to estimate the numbers, eg. if they're given in
a paper, report, magazine, etc. then a machine-readable representation
like a barcode could be given alongside. This would allow us to intuit
the values graphically, rather than slipping up on our parsing of the
representation.

[1] http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/

Cheers,
Chris

[David Barbour]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Chris Warburton
<***@googlemail.com>wrote:

> I think a quite modest improvement would be more powerful
> calculators.


Smart phones? :)

(But seriously.)

Honestly, one of the things I would really want in a "more powerful
calculator" is a powerful array of sensors that can turn parts of my
environment into usable numbers. What is the distance between these two
trees? What is the GPS coordinate? What chemicals are detected in the area?

Even better if this happened all the time, so I can ask questions about
recent events. Unfortunately, we lack the energy technologies for it.
(Storage is much less an issue; we have lots of storage, and useful
exponential decay and compression models to remove the boring stuff.)

[Paul D. Fernhout]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Paul Homer]

Hi Michael,

I was really thinking of something deeper than a Delphi-style repository. Often I've had to negotiate between two diametrically opposed groups. I do this by resorting to what a mentor once taught me as 'mange by fact'. If you strip away the emotions, opinions, assumptions, etc. you can often find commonality at a basic factual level. Once you've gotten there, you just work your way back up to a agreement of some sort. I prefer coding, but it's a useful skill :-)

As it works well to solve sever disagreements, a larger computer enabled fact repository might also make the world a happier place. Perhaps.

Paul.

Sent from my iPad

On 2013-09-08, at 9:32 AM, Michael Turner <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> "To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It
> needs to be better organized, better understood and far more
> accessible. It can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really
> needs ways to share it appropriately. The world changes dramatically
> when we've developed the ability to fuse all of our digitized
> information into one great structural model that has the capability to
> separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but I've always
> thought it was possible..."
>
> Not to be crass here, but incentives matter. And "appropriate sharing"
> is very much in the eye of the beholder. This is why prediction
> markets often work better than Delphi-style expert-opinion-gathering.
> Talk is cheap. To "separate out fact from fiction" is expensive. You
> have to make it worth people's time. And you have to make the answers
> matter to those offering them, in a way that future discounting can't
> dent much. In Delphi, you can always shrug and say, "the other experts
> were just as wrong as I was." And your reputation is still secure.
> With prediction markets, there's an automatic withdrawal from your
> bank account, as well as from the accounts of all the other experts
> who were wrong.
>
> The Engelbart vision (also the Vannevar Bush vision) was incubated
> very much within a government-industry complex, where realistic
> organizational imperatives are limited by the forces that
> bureaucracies can marshal. Beyond a certain scale, that model falls
> prey to inevitable bureaucratic infighting, contention over resources,
> indefeasible claims to having "the better team." If we have less unity
> in the government-industry informatics mission now, it's probably
> because the backdrop is a silly War on Terror, rather than the
> conflict that was contemporary for Engelbart and V. Bush: the somewhat
> more solidly grounded Cold War.
>
> Truth is not a fortress whose walls you can scale by piling up
> soldiers anyway. Sharper eyes and minds are not for sale, if it's only
> to march in one of Matthew Anold's "ignorant armies that clash by
> night." For some information-aggregation problems, you need the sniper
> you can't see yet, until there's a muzzle flash. At which point, if
> you're the one who's wrong, well, too late for you! C'est la guerre.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Turner
> Executive Director
> Project Persephone
> K-1 bldg 3F
> 7-2-6 Nishishinjuku
> Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 160-0023
> Tel: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> ***@projectpersephone.org
> http://www.projectpersephone.org/
>
> "Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward
> together in the same direction." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi Paul
>>
>> I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view,
>> and I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in
>> this direction.
>>
>> However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and
>> especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their
>> training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire and
>> environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here -- but
>> it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Homer <***@yahoo.ca>
>> To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing
>> <***@vpri.org>; Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I
>> think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but
>> individually people still make important choices based on too little
>> knowledge.
>>
>> In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of
>> 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards
>> reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by
>> individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the
>> classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by
>> giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not
>> a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be
>> used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would
>> have made normally.
>>
>> To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs
>> to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't
>> keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it
>> appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the
>> ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural
>> model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long
>> way off, but I've always thought it was possible...
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> Hi Jonathan
>>
>> We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others
>> on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
>> To: ***@vpri.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a
>> problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to
>> work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>> Cc:
>> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>> Hi Dan
>>
>> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
>> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>>
>> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
>> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
>> time for the last 5-6 months.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>> To: ***@vpri.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>> Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or
>> put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fonc mailing list
>> ***@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tt mailing list
>> ***@postbiota.org
>> http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt
>>

[Paul Homer]

Hi Alan,

I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but individually people still make important choices based on too little knowledge.


In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would have made normally.


To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but I've always thought it was possible...

Paul.




>________________________________
> From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>Hi Jonathan
>
>
>We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Edwards <***@csail.mit.edu>
>To: ***@vpri.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>From: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
>>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <***@vpri.org>
>>Cc: 
>>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>Hi Dan
>>
>>
>>It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. 
>>
>>
>>Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months.
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Dan Melchione <***@melchione.com>
>>To: ***@vpri.org
>>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>>Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>
>>
>>Haven't seen much regarding this for a while.  Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>***@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>***@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>