diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'CORE1.cpp')
| -rw-r--r-- | CORE1.cpp | 224 |
1 files changed, 208 insertions, 16 deletions
@@ -22,26 +22,71 @@ using namespace std; // GDB HAS A MACHINE INTERFACE MODE THAT COULD BE USED TO MANAGE EXECUTION WITH LEARNING -// DYLOAD NOTES: -// -// #define _GNU_SOURCE -// #include <dlfcn.h> -// // LM_ID_NEWLM makes a new isolated namespace -// void *handle = dlmopen(LM_ID_NEWLM, "./path.so", RTLD_NOW); // NULL -> failure -// link with -ldl -// links .so with -shared -fPIC -// void *addr = dlsym(handle, "symbolname"); // NULL -> failure -// int res = dlclose(handle); // 0 -> success (dlerror) -// -// extern "C" // place before exports to demangle their symbols +#include "Context.hpp" + +// let's launch a context func providing for segfault handling <=========================== +// 1. fork into two processes. old process waits on status of new +// 2. new process makes call. if call succeeds, reports to old who disappears knowing shared +// state is fully held by new. +// 3. if call fails, old holds state, and reports trauma to user +// concepts: "how do i handle this" +// "do i understand this correctly" +// "why did this happen" + + +///// CORE +// brainstorm on brainstorming +// define brainstorming as 2 patterns: +// - a large scale goal +// - a habit implementation made of interconnecting steps // -// __attribute__((constructor)) and __attribute__((destructor)) functions -// are called on load/unload -// alternatively use _init() and _fini_() and pass -nostartfiles to gcc -// atexit() is preferred +// use brainstorming on the two to find better and better ways and implementations. + +////// Should I make an AI? +// Assuming you want to SHARE it, YES. +// Until you make an AI, only a handful of select people on earth will have one. +// These people will be effectively running the world, leaving many concerns out. + +///// Core expansion +// need step-concept, made of substeps, with state-parts that interconnect? +// need state-concept +// currently working on steps having behavior -- runtime libs + +// could state concept evolve via interconnection of steps and checking? +// maybe? looks hard + +/////////////////////////////////// +// START DYNAMIC CODE LOADING BLOCK (feel free to move/change/use) +#ifndef _GNU_SOURCE +#define _GNU_SOURCE +#endif +#include <dlfcn.h> +// link with -ldl +void loadandcall(string func, Context & context) { + string so = "./" + func + ".so"; + void *handle = dlmopen(LM_ID_NEWLM, "./path.so", RTLD_NOW); + if (handle == NULL) throw dlerror(); + void *addr = dlsym(handle, func); + if (addr == NULL) throw dlerror(); + ((void (*)(Context &))addr)(context); + dlclose(handle); +} +// make func.cpp with +// extern "C" void func(Context &) {} +// and compile with +// g++ -shared -fPIC func.cpp -o func.so +// END DYNAMIC CODE LOADING BLOCK +////////////////////////////////// + +// instead of stitching compiled strings together, let's use dyload functions? +// in order to do flow control, we can have functions that handle a vector of other functions +// although it makes for a little more work, it makes passing parameters easy // problem: how does a .cpp file reference another file with a number // answer: use #includes or interpret the whole shebang as numbers +// or adjust loadandcall() to handle number lists + +// need a way to do nested loops with numbers <=============================== // please provide for handling a parameter next. // @@ -141,3 +186,150 @@ int main() // what things make / not make issue? // karl says everything makes an issue; this seems accurate // + + + +// I'm thinking about implementating brainstorm-about-brainstorm +// and how this will require process-step- and goal- patterns, and that they +// will be interchangeable, roughly. +// +// Thinking of matching parts of nested pattern contexts ... +// this is similar to the 'grounded' patterns in opencog +// each [context layer] has a [variable-set layer] associated with it -- +// variables of that layer depend on the context layer +// each one is one pattern + +// let's do an example of simple step task. +// - make toast +// get bread +// open cupboard +// remove bag-of-bread +// open bag-of-bread +// take bread out of bag-of-bread +// place bread on counter +// close bag-of-bread +// return bag-of-bread to cupboard +// close cupboard +// toast bread into toas +// butter toas +// serve +// make toast +// goal: toasted bread for eating +// start: in kitchen, human +// +//open cupboard +// goal: cupboard-contents-accessible +// start: cupboard closed +// way: reach-for-cupboard-and-pull-handle-towards-you +// +// we open the cupboard so as to access the contents inside of it +// these contents include the bread we are trying to get +// +// start: +// var X +// where X is in cupboard +// x cannot be gotten +// +// end: +// var X +// where X is in cupboard +// x can be gotten +// +// always: +// var X, Y, Z +// where X is in Y +// and Y is in Z +// X is in Z + +// there's a connection between layers here. we moved from 'make toast' to 'get bread' +// with 'bread is in cupboard' implicit + +// goal: have toast +// know: using toaster, bread becomes toast +// do not have bread +// find X: pre: do not know where X is. post: know where X is +// get X: pre: do not have X. post: have X + +// available steps: +// open-cupboard: X is in cupboard and you can't get X, now you can get X + +// what connects get-bread to can-get-bread? +// how is opening the cupboard the first step for getting the bread? +// get-bread means pick-up-bread-physically +// pick-up-bread-physically requires air-path-to-object +// cupboard prevents this +// can-pick-up-bread-bag + +// okay, need-bread: +// bread-is-in-bread-bag -> can get things inside other things via opening +// need bread-bag +// bread-bag-is-in-cupboard -> can get things inside other things via opening + + +// end-state: have-bread + +// step: get X +// start-state: X is reachable, +// [reach to get] +// end-state: have X +// +// apply step to end-state: have-bread. now we want end-state: bread is reachable. + +// step: open Y +// start-state: X is in Y +// Y is reachable +// Y is openable +// [act to open Y] +// end-state: X is reachable + +// so if we are working on end-state: have-bread +// we are probably using a general pattern where 'bread' is held by a variable we have. +// we're given our context to include this variable, when we brainstorm solutions. +// in our brainstorm, we look for things that could move towards our end-state. +// we plug in data related to our context to make this work. +// bread is what we want a path to have, so when we see a pattern with 'have X' at end, +// we plug 'bread' in for X. +// we know thing sabout 'bread', so we can plug 'bread is in bread bag' in for 'X is in Y' +// or if we don't know whether bread is in bread bag, we can leave that piece +// of the pattern unknown, and try it to see if it works. + +// it doesn't seem that complicated or that confusingly nested, because the inner patterns +// have their outer context filled when evaluated. + +// to reiterate the reminder, this is very logical and is not the only way for thought +// and learning. we will need a fuzziness to it and to be able to morph it around. +// [using e.g. openiness yes rather than 'is it reachable is it openable'] +// so more like +// step: open Y +// end-state: sometimes X is now reachable +// and relations between X and Y affect the likelihood of that + + +// THEN: rather than listing these steps out, just give some experiences +// and then brainstorm the similarities among the experiences +// to identify proposed patterns +// that can be used to do stuff. +// TODO: lay out precise brainstorming pattern for 1st-stage pattern-generalizing + +// 1st stage is not too hard (but insufficient in long term) +// +// cupboard is closed +// then +// [wayne opens cupboard] +// then +// wayne has bread +// becomes pattern proposal for open-cupboard as listed above + +// PLUS: To quickly fill in the unexpected gaps: +// if you have all the bits in, it should be able to derive general wisdom +// without exploring reality. (of course reality is needed to check this) + +// ALSO ALSO ALSO: be sure to consider the attribute-patterns. +// opening some A works for getting some B +// -> there are discernable patterns available here regarding +// B is in A +// A is openable +// A is reachable + + +// be sure to generalize pattern work, with simple processes that work for many forms |