The approaches about natural language programming

[eekee]

In Star Trek, most of the instances of voice communication with a computer are database queries, showing a sophisticated database engine but not other programming possibilities. The one big exception I recall is on DS9: O'Brien tells the computer something like, "Describe sub-program 'Pup'." That looks like sophisticated code analysis used as a very high-level debugging tool: make sure the program meets its requirements, with the added benefit that you can do it in front of your boss. (Maybe that's the primary reason it exists. ) I don't remember ever having seen an on-screen instance of actual programming in natural language in Star Trek. I have seen them using those panels like keyboards; especially Data for some reason. (You'd think he'd have wifi... but that would be creepy.)

[mmdmine]

i would treat the natural language just as a programming language. we can parse sentences and treat the verb as command. it needs a large database of words and their meaning (not their english defination but a piece of code that compiler undrestands). also we can define common phrases as alias.

[QuantumRobin]

The whole issue of 'undecidability' in Gödel's paper is regarding the ability to 'decide' a proposition within a given propositional calculus, not in any absolute terms.

If a propositional calculus allows irrational moves to be made, then it's fantasy mathematics rather than anything of relevance to the real world, but if that was the case, it would also mean that people are also making a big mistake when they try to apply it to the real world, which they frequently do.

When we have AGI, we can let it untangle all the mess and judge it for us, putting each kind of maths in the right category so that people can see whether it's real or fake. What actually matters though in this conversation is the simple point that "this statement is true" is not true. I have not heard any mathematicians making that point, and I keep seeing "this statement is false" being presented by some as an unresolved paradox, but I have resolved it. And the point of me bringing this into the conversation here was simply to show something I've found which anyone with a good mind should be able to understand and recognise as correct. It was to illustrate that I have the ability to break new ground and that people should not keep telling me that I can't be doing the work that I know I'm doing. There are other things I could point you to which show the same thing, such as my demolitions of Einstein's STR and GTR . Here's one of my disproofs of STR: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-stro ... ooper-613?. Again though, people merely dig in to defend the deities of science rather than looking at the places where they've broken fundamental rules. You can't rely on getting recognition for rightness from humans because their thinking is overridden too easily by what they want to be true. Here's another one: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity. You can show people as much proof as you like, but what actually happens is that they simply reject it by waving their hands about and saying "it must be wrong", but none of them can break the argument even though I've gone to ridiculous lengths to make it as easy as possible for them with the "interactive exam" which should pin their objection down to a specific point, if they really had one. They are not rational: Einstein has become a religion. I even have a long series of emails exchanged with a physicist in which he ended up rejecting mathematics and asserting the superiority of physics over it.

It's clear now though that the only thing people will accept as a demonstration that I'm the kind of person that can build AGI is for me to build it, but that's fine because that job is practically done. The system exists and it's just a matter of debugging it and then loading it up with knowledge, plus a few tweaks here and there to provide any small essential bits of functionality that might have been overlooked and left out. Quantum Robin has merely forced me to say a few things about it here a few months earlier than I wanted to. I still aim to have a demo ready by the beginning of March, but if you happen to be in Scotland for any reason after the middle of the year and the demo still hasn't materialised, I'd be happy to show you exactly where things are. I can give you a tour of the complex interlinked structures which replicate every single detail of what the brain must also do with its data in order to support all the general intelligence functionality which we know that it has, and I'll show you the extent of the code and explain the algorithms which it applies. Obviously I'd rather not have to show you the internals of it at all and I'm confident that I won't need to, but there you have a promise which you can follow up on if you have to. The project is real and I don't want to discuss it here again until March.

Hi!

David Cooper,

Now is January 2020!

March 2020 is near!

Will NLP (Natural Language Programming) and AGI (artificial general intelligence) replace most developers in March 2020?

[DavidCooper]

Will NLP (Natural Language Programming) and AGI (artificial general intelligence) replace most developers in March 2020?

No - that's a few years away. What might happen by March if (I can maintain this exhausting workload) is that a simple demo will appear, showing the beginnings of AGI in a very restricted domain. That will not impress anyone, but it will rapidly be followed be a series of increasingly advanced demos where it becomes clear that the system is learning and expanding its capability as it does so, demonstrating that it is general rather than restricted intelligence. That increase in capability will be achieved by adding more data rather than by writing more program code for it, although some of that new data will be code generated by the system itself, and that code will be written in an artificial language of thought. The user will use NLP, but the system will use ATLP (artificial thought-language programming) and interpret that (or compile it to machine code for the equivalent of subconscious processing). Humans use NTLP rather than ATLP, and that is unique for each person, though its structure is likely universal and will be much the same as ATLP. Google won't tell you any more than that: this post is the only place on the Net that mentions ATLP and NTLP, and I'm not going to expand on that subject.

I don't anticipate the system being able to pass the Turing Test until the end of the year at the earliest, and even then it would likely need to be my own variant of the Turing Test in which the judges don't know if they're talking to a machine on its own or a machine working along with a human. This variant of the Turing Test is better in that it doesn't force a machine to hide its intelligence in order to pose as a less intelligent human (while the human's job is to pass the test in the normal way while being allowed to supply more intelligent answers from a machine too). The test should not fail a machine for being clearly more intelligent than a human - both the machine working on its own and the machine working alongside a human would then be able to display superior intelligence to humans without failing the test. (The machine working alone should not have to pretend to be less intelligent than it actually is, just as humans aren't required to hide their intelligence.)

[QuantumRobin]

David Cooper,

Will you tell to Gerry Rzeppa that you created the NLP (Natural Language Programming) and the AGI (artificial general intelligence)?

If not, why you will not tell to Gerry Rzeppa that you created the NLP (Natural Language Programming) and the AGI (artificial general intelligence)?

[DavidCooper]

Will you tell to Gerry Rzeppa that you created the NLP (Natural Language Programming) and the AGI (artificial general intelligence)?

If not, why you will not tell to Gerry Rzeppa that you created the NLP (Natural Language Programming) and the AGI (artificial general intelligence)?

Gerry is patient and doesn't keep asking to be told things have happened before they've happened. You should do the same. Stop posting about this until there's something useful to discuss.

[QuantumRobin]

Quantum Robin has merely forced me to say a few things about it here a few months earlier than I wanted to.

Hi David Cooper!

Why you said that I (Quantum Robin) has merely forced you to say a few things about the NLP (Natural Language Programming) and the AGI (artificial general intelligence) in OS Dev Forums a few months earlier than you wanted to?

Reference: viewtopic.php?p=302610#p302610

[DavidCooper]

Why you said that I (Quantum Robin) has merely forced you to say a few things about the NLP (Natural Language Programming) and the AGI (artificial general intelligence) in OS Dev Forums a few months earlier than you wanted to?

You keep trying to open up a discussion which no one else wants to have here because it's about a disruptive technology which will do them a lot of harm when it's released. They would much rather not think about it until there's proof that it's more than mere talk, and they won't share your excitement about it when that proof appears. That's why it's a toxic topic. Stop posting about it.

[Solar]

Perhaps it's not so much a fear of "a disruptive technology" as rather the opinion that the whole subject is a bit delusional. Time will tell.

[QuantumRobin]

Perhaps it's not so much a fear of "a disruptive technology" as rather the opinion that the whole subject is a bit delusional. Time will tell.

Mel didn't approve of compilers.


“If a program can't rewrite its own code”,
he asked, “what good is it?”

Mel had written,
in hexadecimal,
the most popular computer program the company owned.

Mel loved the RPC-4000
because he could optimize his code:
that is, locate instructions on the drum
so that just as one finished its job,
the next would be just arriving at the “read head”
and available for immediate execution.
There was a program to do that job,
an “optimizing assembler”,
but Mel refused to use it.

“You never know where it's going to put things”,
he explained, “so you'd have to use separate constants”.

It was a long time before I understood that remark.
Since Mel knew the numerical value
of every operation code,
and assigned his own drum addresses,
every instruction he wrote could also be considered
a numerical constant.
He could pick up an earlier “add” instruction, say,
and multiply by it,
if it had the right numeric value.
His code was not easy for someone else to modify.

reference: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html

Richard Hamming -- The Art of Doing Science and Engineering, p25
In the beginning we programmed in absolute binary... Finally, a Symbolic Assembly Program was devised -- after more years than you are apt to believe during which most programmers continued their heroic absolute binary programming. At the time [the assembler] first appeared I would guess about 1% of the older programmers were interested in it -- using [assembly] was "sissy stuff", and a real programmer would not stoop to wasting machine capacity to do the assembly.

Yes! Programmers wanted no part of it, though when pressed they had to admit their old methods used more machine time in locating and fixing up errors than the [assembler] ever used. One of the main complaints was when using a symbolic system you do not know where anything was in storage -- though in the early days we supplied a mapping of symbolic to actual storage, and believe it or not they later lovingly pored over such sheets rather than realize they did not need to know that information if they stuck to operating within the system -- no! When correcting errors they preferred to do it in absolute binary.

FORTRAN was proposed by Backus and friends, and again was opposed by almost all programmers. First, it was said it could not be done. Second, if it could be done, it would be too wasteful of machine time and capacity. Third, even if it did work, no respectable programmer would use it -- it was only for sissies!


John von Neumann, when he first heard about FORTRAN in 1954, was unimpressed and asked "why would you want more than machine language?" One of von Neumann's students at Princeton recalled that graduate students were being used to hand assemble programs into binary for their early machine. This student took time out to build an assembler, but when von Neumann found out about it he was very angry, saying that it was a waste of a valuable scientific computing instrument to use it to do clerical work.

reference: http://worrydream.com/dbx/

Other quotes comes to mind:

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."

History has shown that they’re wrong.

Inspiring figures in Unix history — Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, and Ken Thompson among others — emphasize that portability of the system by using the high‐level compiled language C has been one of Unix’s greatest strengths.

“C has become successful to an extent far surpassing any early expectations. What qualities contributed to its widespread use?

“Doubtless the success of Unix itself was the most important factor; it made the language available to hundreds of thousands of people.
Conversely, of course, Unix’s use of C and its consequent portability to a wide variety of machines was important in the system’s success. But the language’s invasion of other environments suggests more fundamental merits.

“Despite some aspects mysterious to the beginner and occasionally even to the adept, C remains a simple and small language, translatable with simple and small compilers. Its types and operations are well-grounded
in those provided by real machines, and for people used to how computers work, learning the idioms for generating time‐ and space‐efficient programs is not difficult. At the same time the language is sufficiently
abstracted from machine details that program portability can be achieved.

“Equally important, C and its central library support always remained in touch with a real environment. It was not designed in isolation to prove a point, or to serve as an example, but as a tool to write programs that did useful things; it was always meant to interact with a larger operating system, and was regarded as a tool to build larger tools. A parsimonious, pragmatic approach influenced the things that went into C:
it covers the essential needs of many programmers, but does not try to supply too much.”

https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.pdf

The point is, time moves on.

Will NLP (Natural Language Programming) and AGI (artificial general intelligence) replace most developers?

Time will tell.

David Cooper,

What is your opinion about the message that I quoted above?

[Ethin]

This is just starting to get irritating. We've all made our points. Personally I think this entire topic has gotten delusional and a bit "out of this world" so to speak. At first it was intersting and now everyones moved on. OP, please stop and leave this topic alone.

[klange]

I am locking this thread. It has gone on far too long, and QuantumRobin's repeated messages directed at DavidCooper are borderline harassment.