Original post by DarkThrone
x = 7 is so great. I use it and now my machine can think, dream and solve the problem for dominate the world. Thanks.
Without sarcasm, I'm not questioning the DYNAMIC of a thing. A car is based in physic, with VELOCITY, TORQUE, RPM values. But a engine is built by MECHANICS, not PHYSIC. Even Mechanics uses Physics, it's relative to Mechanics the Physic formula used.
The problem is the theory, in some parts, show you anything so complex that you need a full mathemathical course rather than code. So, you finally know that this damned formula is more simple than 1+1. If in same theory, a simple step-by-step by example will teach you by association what that means.
Well, I'm an academic, so to a certain extent, I guess I value theory higher than code. My advisor once warned me that as long as I played only with code, I'd be just like any hacker that comes a dime a dozen. And I guess to a certain extent, one of the main reason I don't like giving out code is just that I don't want people falling into the same trap I stepped into. You can only build so much on what other people have made. A person can give you a recipe for a sponge cake, and all you'll ever be able to make would be variations of that. You can take apart the engine of a car, an gasoline engine, let's say V6, and modify it anyway you want, but chances are, you won't be able to build a Diesel engine.
Also, there's the effort factor. Somebody may have poured over the theory for hours or days to come up with the code, and they just don't feel that someone else should get it for free without going through the same effort. Its almost a pride thing. Personally, as a programmer, I believe that you never really learn anything until you build it yourself.
Seems that I and Weirdofu agree with dream dynamic, but that's not the point. Since the base is psychology, first we have to gave a full structure of storage and manipulation sufficient efficient to dynamic runs out of errors. If you don't, you will seek and modify the dynamic code ( the mathemathical part ) to try repair a error that don't be there. Even you can sucess, it's not perfect, and in a point or another it fails. If you build a clear base, dynamic adjustements just enhance the project instead. That's the concept. The machine knows nothing, just you can teach it. If you are a good teacher, if will be a good program.
True for most solutions in the world and true for AI almost always, the Occam's Razor. In AI, sometimes and many times, things are ALOT simpler than you think. The question is rather, how do I break things down and simplify things to the extreme. Then, there is the issue of identifying, what is hard-wired and what is emergent. Alot of human behavior aren't hardwired or hardcoded, but rather by products of the original code. The original programmer may have no idea such results may occur, but it just does. And it is true that the machine knows nothing, but you shouldn't draw strict lines for it either. Even good teachers can't create good programs if the students are bad. :p