I think cognition programs' ability to define and redefine and even step into and out of syntax structures at runtime is really beautiful. Particularly because the machinery is so minimal. I'm not a language expert so I don't know if that's novel or not.
Reading the article was really enjoyable. As a reader, I could feel the authors' excitement and recognize the joy they've felt as they've climbed over hilltops only to realize a new range of possibilities.
If I understand it correctly, what's really being said here is that, with Cognition, you can build truly "thinking" machines.
Programs can write and execute their own novel subroutines, based on new input and without ever being halted and restarted with new instructions. And that means the program can learn and adapt by building new abstractions and possibly connect itself to new APIs.
To me, that's more exciting than a bigger neural network or a new training technique.
Reading the article was really enjoyable. As a reader, I could feel the authors' excitement and recognize the joy they've felt as they've climbed over hilltops only to realize a new range of possibilities.
If I understand it correctly, what's really being said here is that, with Cognition, you can build truly "thinking" machines.
Programs can write and execute their own novel subroutines, based on new input and without ever being halted and restarted with new instructions. And that means the program can learn and adapt by building new abstractions and possibly connect itself to new APIs.
To me, that's more exciting than a bigger neural network or a new training technique.