2013
DOI: 10.2478/v10229-011-0021-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Solving a Problem With or Without a Program

Abstract: To solve a problem, an ordinary computer system executes an existing program. When no such program is available, an AGI system may still be able to solve a concrete problem instance. This paper introduces a new approach to do so in a reasoning system that adapts to its environment and works with insufficient knowledge and resources. The related approaches are compared, and several conceptual issues are analyzed. It is concluded that an AGI system can solve a problem with or without a problem-specific program, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 52 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among all possible compounds, which ones will be actually formed also depends on the system’s experience, like skill acquisition in humans. NARS has the ability of self-programming, in the sense that the system can organize its atomic operations into compound operations recursively and use them as a whole, so as to avoid repeated planning or searching (Wang, 2012b ). In this aspect, NARS is similar to the “recursive self-improvement” model in the study by Steunebrink et al ( 2016 ).…”
Section: Comparisons and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among all possible compounds, which ones will be actually formed also depends on the system’s experience, like skill acquisition in humans. NARS has the ability of self-programming, in the sense that the system can organize its atomic operations into compound operations recursively and use them as a whole, so as to avoid repeated planning or searching (Wang, 2012b ). In this aspect, NARS is similar to the “recursive self-improvement” model in the study by Steunebrink et al ( 2016 ).…”
Section: Comparisons and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%