…Nay, it rather puts on a suit, and becomes a program!

In this article I suggest a novel approach to programming that’s more like poetry and hopefully a lot less sucky… Caution, it’s a rough draft, but I’m quite keenly interested in making it intelligible, so if it isn’t please hit me. So here goes the story:

This afternoon, I was sitting on the loo, letting the usual trivialities flow through my mind;  visual programming and such, the usual. One of my thoughts was: How cool would it be to have a user-interface that returns to the expressiveness of command line interfaces and the days of programming languages as operating system. That once again makes the average user an applied programmer as opposed to a mere button pusher along the lines of “select from this range of three fuckin’ fabrics”, nothing more than a  consumer of pre-programmed options.

So while sitting there trying to figure out what that kind of user-interface might look like this idea for a new programming language paradigm (re-)struck. This paradigm kind of goes in the direction of natural language interfaces but might also be combined with some visual approach. But let’s try to put it together:

Poetic programming or the imprecise language

An interpreted programming language that is not precise, where the interpreter doesn’t let you or make you fully control, predict or understand the syntax or actual execution steps of your program. This language gives you the freedom to do “not all things considered” style programming in exchange for giving up control of well-defined execution behavior. Essentially it treats your code not as a drab cookbook but as a deep and mysterious poem, full of unexplored subtleities.

..But you say: This is bullshit. I don’t care if it hurts! I wanna have control. Heaven forbid if things go horribly wrong?!

Well, then we need fault-tolerance built into the language. Because, coming to think of it, we need fault-tolerance anyway. We should constantly be monitoring and testing our applications’ behavior anyway. Because things are going to go wrong anyway, anyhow, anywhere, at any time, and preferably while you’d rather be doing something else…

So a few fault-tolerance characteristics:

• Undo everywhere. All actions are journaled and undoable if ever possible.
• A limited and access-controlled set of non-undoable actions
• Possibly “let-it-crash” supervision and process capsuling mechanisms as known from Erlang, Akka etc.

Prior Art

• I understand that Lisp offers means to redefine the language in the language itself. Though not an expert there, enlighten me.
• Cucumber/Gherkin is a language for writing tests that is less of a language and more of an interpreter where the input tokens can be arbitrarily redefined to be natural-language style entities.

So if we don’t build lots of nuklear power plants (preferrably of the breeder type and the like, otherwise peak Uranium bites us in the butt) we’re going to run into some serious power-shortage. And with it, shortage of eerything, very much so down to food. And if those kind of things happen, people will start wars. And if wars happen, nuklear plants will become much more of a target.

So building nuklear plants might make us safer from nuklear meltdown. Because they keep us fat and happy.

Every Google search supposedly uses as much energy as burning a light-bulb for one hour (it makes sense that Google is getting into the energy-supply business). Computing devices are really the tip of the iceberg of a vast and complex, resource-hungry non-locally maintainable industrial complex that is geared towards constant growth and development, always making this year’s second coming next year’s plastic crap.
I don’t think this’ll go on forever. No bets when things will change, but this world of ever-expanding mass-computing won’t go on they way it is today; I am unsure what its state will be at the end of the great energy-shrinkage that I expect, because there’s no good idea what this energy shrinkage will look like, specifically when it starts and how long it will take.

In the mid-term (and possibly, partially long-term) the digital domain will actually expand in reaction to contracting energy supply, as virtual experience will still be cheaply reproducible and mass-marketed by centralized sources with costs lying mainly on overhead instead of on the individual unit (which will become scarce and expensive to transport without cheap oil). Stan James makes this argument, projecting  there to be a kind of mass-flight into virtual gratification, with experience in the real world becoming an upper-class matter, echoing the relationship of theater/opera and film nowadays. I would add that this willingness of lower-income consumers to go for electronic media is already a financial burden to them, which will turn into a substantial squeeze and further impoverishment.

Just a brief look into the long run: The internet is a fragile beast. It requires a high level of international cooperation. In the event of economic — and following it — social disintegration (i.e. war) I would expect the grand unified network to retreat to a limited group of interconnected ‘sanctuaries’, much like the medieval monastic scholastic tradition, whereas for widespread use ad-hoc local wireless networks would be the much more viable and practical architecture.

Whichever way things turn out in the long run, a simple midterm economic collapse, as seen in the former USSR or in Argentina in the 90s, would indicate that many research-intense efforts just die. People with engineering degrees sweeping the streets. Innovative industry gets replaced by fly-by-night and scavenging operations as society tries to adjust.

Contrary to all these doomsday-ideas, growing up in the 90s there was a sense of technological promise that inspired me as an adolescent to want to go off and build machines that can think. In hope that they – once intelligent – would solve our problems for us. In hindsight I dare say I was ignorant as to a fundamental portion of the basis of prosperity I grew up in: It is not solely the technology of automatization of production that has made a lordly lifestyle available to masses of people in select countries of the world (e.g. globalization moving to cheap manual labor) it is equally importantly the masses of (still comparably) cheap energy sucked up and lathered onto society by technologically-enabled plunder of fossil fuels.

At times I feel as if I’m in a predicament what do I do with this view. There’s substantial risk to our society and I want to prepare myself and stop contributing to their rise. It is an emotional, practical and ethical issue. While I really have no desire to forgo the pleasures and privileges endowed unto me, to a certain extent I should, because I am using up more resources and polluting more than my fair share. It may also be kind of wise to prepare in some manner. I would after all like to – quoting the Godfather – look back and be able to say “I’ve spent my life trying not to be careless”. We as a society are being very careless with our planet.

I have no idea exactly when, I just know, if we don’t develop controlled nuclear fusion real soon the consumer economy as we know it will fundamentally have to change and be replaced, possibly grinding to a halt for lack of resources. (And even if we were to develop fusion, we’d still have pollution, climate change and an ecological meltdown to boot).
You may say: “What about ‘green’ energy alternatives?” True, they will exist, but even they will get more expensive as the costs of building these various electricity-generating, storing contraptions (windmills, solar etc. oh – and batteries, very energy intensive, same goes for concrete used in windmills) will rise just as resource and transportation costs rise. But we’ll possibly still develop one or the other method to create reasonably priced power, one of my pet ideas is solar updraft towers. Really good for Arizona, not so good for Finland.

But probably the public will not immediately recognize the underlying shortage issues as causes of their hardship. Oftentimes catastrophe’s are mediated in society, you may not actually get to see what’s behind what hit you. You may think that what hit you was a war, or a coup d’etat. In fact it’s just the elites trying to retain their privileged lifestyle at the cost of all of us. And as there’s not quite enough funny resources to grease everyone, someone will have to go.

The political system of the American-dominated world empire will collapse within my lifetime, I am rather sure of that, even though I don’t know when, as the date seems to largely depend on policy decisions made in Beijing. With it the current nature of life in our style of industrial societies will fade (no trade deficit, no consumerland). What will it be replaced by?

Today a friend told us about his visit to New Orleans, specifically to the lower 9th Ward, most (and still) devastated by Katrina. He reported on the depopulation and the fact that there is none of the usual infrastructure in place such as grocery stores. One of the abandoned supermarkets has been converted to a church, outside of which residents hold a weekly farmer’s market, with children’s rides, and a happy, carnival atmosphere. He was moved to tears describing the sense of community he felt there.

I have the feeling that amongst the big fundamental problems outlined above there are quite a few waves that I’ll either have to ride or swallow, there’s no safe ducking, no stopping climate change or declining energy yields. So what will I do? Will I continue working in computing? Quite possibly I will, it’s just enjoyable, an acquired taste, it’s exhilarating to put ideas into a machine. Will I be involved in politics? I sure hope so. I haven’t yet found the niche I feel good in – at all, but maybe this will change when push comes to shove. And on the preparedness-side? I’m definitely pressuring my family to keep that large garden and the house, it may be a lot of work, but it’s just good to have. We might come to appreciate it. War and shortages are not a thing of the past.

A word on positivity: Many efforts to strikingly characterize the grave problems mentioned above are criticized as being ‘too negative’. I take issue with that; If I know that a tsunami is going to hit Honolulu with a 30% chance, it is important to negatively assess the danger, and get the hell out of there to higher ground. Positive thinking here would mean to believe you’ll make it into a higher story of a building, or be able to hang onto a palm tree so the backflow won’t rip you out to sea. That’s not the best option while you still have the time to actually do something about it. While you still have the time, thinking negative, pessimism is the way to go, to play it safe. The only situations in which optimism is the preferred survival strategy is when the potential threat is highly unlikely (hence just get on with your life) or very likely (you’ll probably die anyway, so why not do it smiling). And I, for my own part, am too optimistic to believe that we’re yet damned to die.

(Thanks to Jackie Griego for her input.)

The Good old epicurean argument slightly rephrased:

• Is God willing to prevent suffering but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
• Is he able but not willing?  Then he is malevolent!
• Is he both able and willing? Then whence commeth suffering?
• Is he neither able nor willing?  Then why call him God?

I guess a lot of religious people from our cultural setting will say that he is able and ‘kind of willing’, but that he prefers to give us our freedom so that we can show whether we love him out of our own free will. But what kind of self-serving approach is that, to put us through our misery only to see whether we’re ‘good’, whether we ‘love’ God? And if God is omnipotent, why can’t he make us be free, without suffering? All of this sounds to me more like a sadistic game than benevolence. But what if suffering is just an integral part of our existence? What if we can’t be ‘us’ if we do not suffer? What if our personality, our self essentially hinged on suffering? I personally could not agree more, the question however is how this plays out in the mainstream monotheistic religions; So the idea would basically be that for God to make us be us we would have to suffer. But this directly contradicts the idea of redemption and eternal glory. If the afterlife is – unlike in Greek mythology – more than just a pale aftershadow of this life, and instead a life of sufferingless bliss promised to the people of this world, then how in hell do we get there, being ourselves, assumed that suffering is an essential part of us? Now even out of this argument one could still weasel out by saying that it is essential to us to be part of a process, from suffering to non-suffering. Which is interesting and I currently have no retort to that. So in the end I guess it just doesn’t make sense to discuss religion. You believe it or not. For my own part, I disbelieve words. But religion isn’t just words. There’s a lot of BS.

But to make one thing perfectly clear, I despise most Atheism, with all its scientifico-centric rationalistic hogwash.

To my Chinese friends, even though it may not help: please do not be offended. I’m taking your leadership as an example of a trend that has grown out of century long ruthless greed and disrespect for nature mostly on behalf of us of European heritage. It’s just in the context of this article on Copenhagen that I’m struck by the idea that the Chinese leadership’s behaviour exemplifies or foreshadows a grand comeback for worldwide ruthless leadership.

Back in the day when the Berlin Wall fell, everyone and their mother’s neighbor’s socks succumbed to the pleasant dirge of consumerist capitalism laced with cushy-feely big-media politics which was essentially one big circus of not losing image. And you lost  if you did stuff that looked bad, that was brutal and ruthless.

There’s something rutheless to any war, but even the Bush administration vs. the phantom of Islamic extremism, or Palestinians vs. Israelis were all wars drenched in fear-mongering or moral outrage. You couldn’t just do it because you can. We have these strange asymmetric wars, where asymmetry doesn’t mean anihilation of the other force, instead it means that wars get drawn out forever. E.g. the war in Afghanistan. Or consider how the way Cheney/Rumsfeld pulled off the invasion of Iraq is clearly different from Germany’s Blitzkrieg to gobble up Poland. Back then they just did it because they could. In the last Iraq war we had to lie and squirm our way into it like weasly maggots.
I say, all of this is coming to an end. Good old Obamination’ll be just another spike in direction of the media-moral complex before the US and with it global society and culture moves on to the next big thing: Good old ruthlessness. Already, if you compare Clinton’s wars (mostly Yugoslavia) to Bush you can see a trend. Resources will be scarce, memory of past atrocities gone stale, weapons lying around in heaps and piles…

But this post is not about war.. So what with China and Copenhagen?

Well, the writing on the wall is that climate change will happen. And also that going on polluting won’t help. Furthermore it’s the case that great parts of China already are suffering from pollution and will suffer severely when ocean levels rise. Then let’s assume the Chinese leadership is not stupid; What could be driving them to position themselves against helping the climate?

First of all they certainly know that their current power is based on galloping economic growth. Not only that, they furthermore are aware of the fact that natural catastrophe hardly ever hurts autocratic rulers. It’s more or less immediate and obviously anthropogenic economic downturn that does. So I guess they’re just playing to their own advantage, sacrificing their own costal population (plus the rest of the world then going to be living below sea-level, which is quite a lot).

Rather bad-ass but normal for politicians you think? But this is not where the ruthlessness ends. If you view the world as a block of wood, there’s not only geopolitics, there’s also geo-engineering. The Chinese elite (and their friends in power all over the world, i.e. Russia, US) might not be above a bit of tampering with (toxic) methods of artificial darkening and other weather-manipulation. Which brings us back to the supposition I made above: “Let’s assume the Chinese leadership is not stupid.” Well, if they believe they can tamper in a massive manner with a complex system such as our climate (which is already under severe stress) without running the risk of eradicating the very basic dynamics on which our supporting ecosystem runs — and with it human society — then they are, truly, stupid.

if fed ties “printing money” to concrete assets cf. sweden 1990s. & pipes toward production, may avoid harsh too many $s chasing 2 few goods that is, avoid classic inflation.

Sweden 1990s definately looks like the type of intervention that I would prefer (basically nationalizing  banks).
Piping towards production would be a very, very good idea for the afore consumption-reliant states. But how? There would have to be quite a bit of investment (credit!), but with banks being nationalized they could be forced to extend credit!
An additional problem is that consumer demand is a lagging trend, that is, we won’t be seeing the real slouch until after a few months, exactly in time to dampen producer’s spirits who already have to deal with plummeting prices and overcapacity all over the world (wave to China). [Oh glumm, glumm ]
It is not really clear whether the US would be able to actually retrieve the value put in to save the banks, as in the case of Sweden 1990s. If the current crisis is changing the global economy fundamentally, then less value will be retreivable. The intervention will have been much larger, also proportionally, after all this goes through, including the feds humungous swap-lines, as well as structural changes all around the world, Sweden was more-or-less an isolated case. But the model is well worth considering as far as I can tell.

so werg, will human nature change enough to invent a better model than money as a medium of exchange?

No, I really don’t believe that human nature will change any time soon (hey, by definition that won’t happen — and I’m convinced that evolution via selection is rather broken among us humans at the moment). The question would be whether the form of money we employ today is truly connected to human nature!
I don’t think so. Sure, the concrete form of coins or similar tokens of value has been around for quite a long time and in many cultures. It’s just dead useful, as long as you have a mercantile society! However, those tokens used to (have to) have society-independent (material- or production-) value! This is no longer the case. Ever since those italian merchants developed modern book-keeping we’ve been messing around with our underlying monetary system, changing it all the time. Nowadays it’s not about money — it’s all about credit! And I’m quite sure that our monetary system will continue to change!

Even though I can’t foretell in which direction, I know which direction I’d find interesting: Make banking and money-issuance a peer-to-peer process along the lines of ripple.

In our current system the role of the bank is more and more superfluous. Clearing is done electronically, there is no need for physical institutions. They aren’t absorbing risk as the should, they hand out credit which in the end needs to be guaranteed for by the whole society anyway. Hence credit procedures must be standardized which leaves little room for actual contribution. The whole sector of investment-banking has kind of bloated (though initially potentially useful system of distributing value to initiative).

Banks and credit-based money have for long been the social method to make people work, even if their work is not directly connected to satisfying basic needs, by giving them buying power via money. Of course all this is totally based on people’s confidence in the currency’s value. To maintain economic confidence in pieces of paper and numbers on hard-drives, such a system necessitates continuous growth and — almost all over the world — big government debt.

Personally I believe that a market-economic system less based on perpetual growth would be better. Changes in such directions need crises, though. Hence my heightened interest.

Everything has to grind to a halt, because the current value-system (economically speaking) has not been consolidated. House prices are still too high. People aren’t selling. The banks are insolvent, even by watered-down bank standards. They hold some assets that are worth nothing and others that are rapidly becoming worth a lot less. Hence there is no trust in the current level of prices for securities. There is no transparency — and the government is doing a lot to keep people in the haze about the actual situation. The problem is that in a fractional reserve system banks are technically broke, by definition. If however the economy endures a long period of doubt, this can not be good. Therefore, the states around the world have decided to guarantee for all the banks’ failures. Well guess what — this actually puts nations such as the United States of America in extremely uncomfortable jeopardy of going bankrupt, i.e. that there will not be enough trust (or capital for that matter!) on the market to buy Treasury bills. Of course they can “solve” this by just printing money (this is essentially what happens when the Federal Reserve acts as Lender of last Resort) — that’s another boondoggle though. Because – as every high-school student should be able to figure out, printing lots of money, in a situation in which there is little trust in the financial standing of the state (i.e. low low bond prices, overall depression) leads to devaluation of the currency – inflation. In that manner, the whole economy pays off what started as a bank problem. Pay-off can not be avoided! We will not be able to bubble ourselves out of this (as was done with housing- and .com bubbles).

There might have been some steps that could have been taken, wiser than bailout the economic criminals and pretend it never happened, however, without public outrage, leave alone understanding of these matters, such policy decisions are hardly politically possible. There’s just too much power involved.

Those familiar with my twitter-persona might be aware of (and ignored) the fact that I like to send around links to texts by my favorit crisis-Commentator, Karl Denninger. Here‘s a post of his explaining the necessity of recession and the problem of depression in good terms. His take on politics and economics is rather conservative, yet highly critical.

Was tun wenn’s brennt?

We are now in a downward spiral: less confidence means less investment, less sales, downscaling of production, less employment, less consumption, less sales, less confidence, less investment etc. Until there is some kind of bottoming out. Some kind of relieving downpour, it’ll go on for a while, simply because our economic structure and our values are lopsided.

So what’s to be done? I don’t know. Just sit it out, I guess. I haven’t (yet) found a good oportunity lying in this crisis.

There are grave dangers. I am pretty sure that there will be very many very disgruntled people. This might constitute a problem at least as much as it could constitute a chance. Disgruntled folks who are going without the purchasing power that they used to have, while living in — and coming from — a consumerist culture can produce social unrest, grave rise in crime (read up about Argentina – a laboratory for what we’ll be going through) and overall poverty. It’s scaling down that is so tough, that will make people want to reach out to some kind of straw of hope. A difficult situation. Will there be demagogue leaders popping up? Sure thing, especially in the US. Will there be a lot more hate-related violence, i.e. against foreigners, or other minorities? Might very well be.

On a practical note, here’s an idea: While you still can, you might want to take out a loan at a fixed interest-rate. Could come in handy. After a time of inflation, in five to seven years, that loan won’t be worth as much anyway. Here’s the recipe to get royally screwed: have a few savings, at best invested in stocks or funds, not too much, and not be in debt. You’re so toast. And you know what folks — what I just described is the AAA-sweet-spot definition of this cute, antiquated term: middle class.

But to return to constructive ideas. Some of mine:

• Enjoy the moment, it won’t last! Go on vacation, do some things you might not afford later on.
• Get your money out of the markets, they’re gonna go down. Buy stuff that’s useful to you or others around you instead. Perhaps pad some friendships.
• Move. The US, Great Britain, Russia — to name a few that come to mind — would be less preferred destinations than just a while ago. But wherever you move, think about setting yourself up in a good neighborhood. Not the shady quarter.
• Understand the crisis. Oportunities will be opening up as soon as the downpour into real life starts. It might actually be interesting.

I have no clear idea what would actually happen if the US went under financially. There is a possibility though, that it will happen. It is important to remember that the social and physical infrastructure would still largely in place, with the exception of a few major achilles heels: energy prices, the huge US military spread across the globe, a population very accustomed to consuming more than it produces..

A disclaimer at the end: Economic matters are at a level of complexity that I do not pretend (or rather: do not wish to pretend) to actually fully comprehend. I have some notions which may not be totally off mark, they are however mainly informed by what I have snatched up here or there. One also has to know that I sometimes delight in being pessimistic. This does not make what I say false, only the slant and some conclusions may be off mark.

• I have become slightly more aware of the importance of organization for social prosperity. It is really of utmost importance. It’s what seemed to me to be #1 reason why Nicaragua is 3rd world.
• I have been touched by what I saw on TV, watching President Obama’s inauguration. It is impressive how such sentiment can be connected to a leader. I believe they call it hope, but they gotta pry that from my cold, dead lips. [read a blogpost]
• Living in US suburbia brings to mind the expansiveness of the US-American middle class as a mass of people. People used to such grand life-styles!

On Laziness There is not very much room for laziness in the industrial nations I know. Even the easygoing US. Easygoing here sometimes seems to translate into extra work to be extra nice. (Not that I wouldn’t try to be nice!)
I’m quite lazy — that’s what was so neat about the time I spent in Costa Rica and Nicaragua: I was in a really tight financial situation. But being lazy was a sensible choice there. It saved energy, so I needed to eat & drink less — and I really enjoyed the tropical weather and living outside. Is it sensible here too?
All those nice appliances, gadgets and amenities of industrial life! For example these Computers. All built on this baffling machinery of modern society. It blows my mind again and again, that all these ghosts are alive and moving in such admirable concert. All this system of interdependency sometimes eats on my mind! If something were to go wrong — and I suspect it will, the fear I have is that folks will hurt. (In another only slightly related news, I have been thinking of how the Israeli people are running into pain, I fear — in the long-, the geo-strategic & demographic run.)

Oh, how glum all this is, I do apologize! Very! I am still quite concerned that this or that might collapse at some point, but maybe it’ll take a bit longer than feared, and come more gradually, so we’ll hopefully have plenty of room to wriggle our way through the crisis while having a gratifying life.

But for the proponents of the “people will come up with something, people have always come up with something” thesis: I totally agree. But it’s not at all guaranteed that what they will come up with will resemble our current lifestyle, even in some of its most fundamental amenities. On the other hand, I do not suggest a doomsday scenario, well I kinda suggest it, but I do not expect it. Our lives and our expectations will change, which is just absolutely normal. The difference is simply that I often times live in expectation of social change. You know, it’s change we can believe in… dollars… yeah right.

On a more personal note I notice getting a bit older again. I accustoming myself to my mid-twenties and am nursing some chronic bodily weakness, most vividly present in my everyday life for half a decade now. My hope is very much to get myself on a track of recovery from pain by setting myself up in a more regular life-style now. Please bear with me in your thoughts, that I may.

My aunt has an ant-invasion going on in her house, and she’ll be calling the terminator. At the family I stayed with in Nicaragua this was a non-issue; they had a dirt floor. Ants simply were present.

@Nic:

• Actually, I’m not flying until Monday.
• Yes, one of the outcomes is that it’s rather difficult to memorize fairly large sequences using feedforward nets and backpropagation. Did I finally prove it? No. But I produced material to support that claim, I guess. And it’s also my strong intuition that regardless of the learning-paradigm used, fairly small (i.e. non-huge) nets just run into big problems. Non generalizing. Most probably this has to do with the fact that neural activation (with non-linear activation-function) can at most encode ordinal information, not scalar data (due to the non-linear distortion). One way or another this makes it hard to encode arbitrarily long sequences, as — and this I haven’t proven — all linearily-decodeable encoding-schemes that press arbitrarily long sequences into fixed-size vectors rely heavily on scaling.
  So the problem is that ffNN’s have non-linear distortion which mixes up signals, but only linear means to decode with.
• So about that “evolving metadata along with evolution” approach — what do they work on concretely? Like, for what kind of a domain is that useful? I can see that as being a fairly interesting area… I think I read something on that once. One of the issues is that one tends to end up in is solving the problem already within the evolutionary parameters. But no idea. Just keep giving me reasons to move my ass to Amsti! ;}

• Numerically adaptable (sooft) computing suffers from curse of dimensionality w.r.t. number of parameters. Also, many easily-traineable models (e.g. Hidden Markov Models, Support Vector Machinas) are computationally low-grade (i.e. far from turing-equivalonce). That will not do for semantic & pragmatic generative models. Rule-based, crisp stuff is not adaptable to model our (kinda continuous-valued) world, hence kinda inadequate (at least as stand-alone).
• So we need numerically adaptable methods that really can be used to calculate high-level problems. And we need ways to adapt those parameters.
• Idea 1: Integrate whatever you’re doing into a big, adaptable AI-environment. Let lots of people work on it. Hope that that will give you lots of computational resources and eyeballs to adapt to very specific problems. Caveat: You need a system that basically works, so that people will even start using it — and then they still have to see some benefit in it. So you kinda need a working system to start with, possibly on a restricted domain.
• Idea 2: Dream up some learning-heuristics and other methods that either make your parameters-to-be-learned less, or faster learneable, while still being computationally powerful. I propose a predator-prey learning model, where a generator has outsmart a classifier (and vice versa) to get good learning even if you only have positive and no negative training samples. Also, I suggest ways to spread the parameter-butter (weights of recurrent neural nets) across more bread (memory-capacity) by placing these neural nets like robot-controllers into an artificial world, in which they have read-write access.

Some of this runs under crazy dreams some of it is more like potential Master’s thesis.

…And if you actually read this far and still are following the text, I congratulate you. While reading through I was slightly flummoxed at the rate of reader-unfriendliness some of the constructions exhibit. Maybe it’s just l33t.