What AI Language? Forth! -- Mentifex AI
Arthur T. Murray
D.G. Mitchell "mitc...@cs.toronto.edu" gave some good advice:
>
>In article <6jukoe$9c2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <pa...@blackpool.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Is java suited to AI? What is the main language used in the AI industry?
>> Will Java eclipse it? Or should we stick to the known AI languages?
David G. Mitchell:
>You need to get students writing and understanding programs
>to perform simple versions of certain sorts of tasks quickly.
>[...]
>These tasks require much larger amounts of code in almost any
>other language. If your students are experienced with Java
>already, and you provide some libraries, that's one thing, but
>if they have to learn Java for the course, and have to write
>these tasks from scratch in it, they'll spend more time hacking
>than understanding the ideas and techniques. [...]
I can't argue with David Mitchell's "case-based reasoning,"
because he obviously knows whereof he speaks, but also please
keep in mind good old stack-based Forth for many reasons and
especially because a public-domain Robot AI is being released at
<a href="http://victoria.tc.ca/~uj797/aisource.html">Mind.forth</a>
<a href="http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/aisource.html">Mentifex</a>.
This not-yet-finished but progressing Mind.forth AI for Robots
is different from all previous attempts at AI because it is
actually based on a well developed Unified Theory of Cognition.
<a href="http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/"> Project Mentifex </a>
is the Web site with a tutorial on that linguistic theory of
mind, and as its originator I would like to give to David G.
Mitchell and my other detractors an assurance that I will
either create a genuine Robot AI with Mind.forth in 1998
or go on to other things in life and not try to emulate that
physics kook Einstein with his laughable theory of relativity.
Think different, Dave.
Randolph M. Jones
Arthur T. Murray wrote:
> This not-yet-finished but progressing Mind.forth AI for Robots
> is different from all previous attempts at AI because it is
> actually based on a well developed Unified Theory of Cognition.
By this, do you mean to imply that ACT-R and Soar are not
unified theories of cognition, or simply that they are not well
developed?
Randy Jones