komponisto comments on Call for new SIAI Visiting Fellows, on a rolling basis - Less Wrong

29 Post author: AnnaSalamon 01 December 2009 01:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (264)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 December 2009 10:50:23PM 8 points [-]

Yup. The logic at the time went something like, "I want something that will be reasonably fast and scale to lots of multiple processors and runs in a tight sandbox and has been thoroughly debugged with enterprise-scale muscle behind it, and which above all is not C++, and in a few years (note: HAH!) when we start coding, Java will probably be it." There were lots of better-designed languages out there but they didn't have the promise of enterprise-scale muscle behind their implementation of things like parallelism.

Also at that time, I was thinking in terms of a much larger eventual codebase, and was much more desperate to use something that wasn't C++. Today I would say that if you can write AI at all, you can write the code parts in C, because AI is not a coding problem.

Mostly in that era there weren't any good choices, so far as I knew then. Ben Goertzel, who was trying to scale a large AI codebase, was working in a mix of C/C++ and a custom language running on top of C/C++ (I forget which), which I think he had transitioned either out of Java or something else, because nothing else was fast enough or handled parallelism correctly. Lisp, he said at that time, would have been way too slow.

Comment author: komponisto 03 December 2009 08:54:34PM 1 point [-]

Today I would say that if you can write AI at all, you can write the code parts in C, because AI is not a coding problem.

Exactly -- which is why the sentence sounded so odd.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 December 2009 09:18:32PM 7 points [-]

Well, yes, Yudkowsky-2002 is supposed to sound odd to a modern LW reader.