227RE: [feyerabend-project] RE: AI
- Apr 3, 2002Patrick D. Logan wrote:
> Regarding what's happening with AI and the current XML & RPC[snip]
> technologies... I wonder if there is some value
> in looking at this in a static vs. dynamic dichotomoty.
> Kind of a "BIG AI UP FRONT" vs. "DO THE SIMPLEST AI
> THAT COULD POSSIBLY WORK" dichotomy?
> The latter can be seen in this collection of papers,
> Cambrian Intelligence by Rodney Brooks...
> XML technologies in general seem to fit in those two buckets,
> static and dynamic. Some uses of XML appear to be
> "HEAVYWEIGHT XML". More complicated uses of SOAP, WSDL,
> UDDI, etc. Maybe RDF, but I have not read too
> much about it. "LIGHTWEIGHT XML" could include XML-RPC, etc.
Thanks for the links.
I do believe in "evolutionary" design but I don't believe
in "choosing the wrong tool for the job".
The major problems, that I see, are related to constraining
the very thing we are proposing in the first place
(distributed AI) from the get-go -- and with no clear ways
to fix them.
For example, you can't do mobility because you can't migrate
an agent, or any "executing" part of an agent through DAML
to another location because you can't send functions,
classes, patterns, rules, etc. This means no
"genetic programming" over the network, for example; no
true distributed BPM (business process management), where
the workflows, and the business and workflow rules travel
and compete and execute elsewhere; no ontologies rules dynamically
installed "as is" by being transferred over the network; etc.
I could go on, and on, and on.
10 years down the road I have a strong feeling we _will_
want to do something else, more advanced, but then we
will realize that we chose the wrong paradigm to implement
"distributed AI". Our code will look ugly, messy and it
will be a nightmare to debug. The equivalent AI knowledge
in terms of code and libraries will be "unusable" and
only a small fraction of it will be reproduced in
the "Semantic Web". But worse of all, we won't have a
way to go. Once you choose XMLish technologies your
only programming choice, to be able to do mobility or
such, is to put XSLT on steroids (Yuck!!).... make
it do what LISP does so to speak.
I personally don't like to see that future. I think we
can do much better than that:
we already have the tools...
They are just not all that popular.
The way I make this comparison, is as if you asked
someone to choose between a free, available, 1958
Porsche with a good engine still; or an expensive
1991 skateboard needing a small gas engine to
run up to 30 mph. that is hard to use and that
includes no safety warranties. (I like this analogy
because no matter what you do, you won't be able
to fit a much larger engine on the skateboard...)
Which of the two would rather take out for a drive?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>