so some of the criticism energy around/inside me atm releates to things that are technologically soudn and real, vs those that are not
i spend a lot of time these years engaging technological fantasy, because part of me has worked very very hard to prevent me having skills and effectiveness. the fantasy is nicer and more helpful -- it lets me defend part of my skillset so long as i don't use it
but i do try to do real things to, i just have to kind of approach it sneakily and keep it small and rare and uncertain
... thought not completed
_in other news_ maybe lets have _karl_ write a maze cutter and solver!
this is an introductory task that is not intuitive to everyone, but i grew up with algorithms so it used to be intuitive to me.
i challenged a language model to do it in 4 lines. this is because of how language models are trained. me, i could do it in four lines _only_ if i prepared by imagining or doing it in many more lines, and then shrunk it down. we could combine that by putting the imagination into notes, and keep the notes in 4 lines, but it's more relevant that how people work and what they present are different, as well as people working differently from machines
or maybe we could move AI forward ! for some time i had two favorite contributions to opencog i would do if energy built some day: 1. it didn't have subcontexts which i think are highly important, they are a simple addition 2. it uses esoteric terms which reduces its developer base. given it's AI, all its terms are analogous to everyday concepts. i wanted to make a sugar interface that used everyday concepts so it would be intuitive to use it. of course opencog is now getting supplanted by a new language that is less flexible, the old approach of delineating the meaning of thought still needs a home