As I was watching the subject presentation by Alan Borning on Youtube.....
......................https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0CCG12ieiU.................
an email notification pop-up appeared on the top left of my screen. The text summary caught my eye.
BREAKING: After Trump refused to address his unprecedented conflicts of interest, Elizabeth Warren announced a bill to force him to sell the Trump Organization and put his assets in a true blind trust.
This is the link: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/warren-bill-trump-conflicts-dp/?source=npv-welcome&t=2&akid=5072.3972103.JKvq9P
It was an excellent example of relationship constraint application at the top level of design! Furthermore, it appeared at the point..about 20 minutes into the video....where Alan was presenting the constraint example of a physical bridge truss.
Constraints on a president are conceptual but no less absolute in many cases as physical law constraints. If not observed (not constrained (failing to meet min/max parameters) the bridge will not be permitted to be built because it will fail. If the bridge is built it will fail!
Alan was illustrating on a computer screen the graphic representation of constraint programming.
The president operates in a relationship constrained system. Constrained by relational laws programmed in natural language.
What if all these constraints were programmed in a machine language Artificial Intelligence system?
Elizabeth Warren could sit a her computer with a GUI constraint relationship program displaying the structure of the office of the POTUS. She could apply the constraint of the law she proposes and demonstrate results.
Note: Rule of probability applied to self interest might be.....If self interest benefit can sub-optimize the performance of duties the concept of greed unconstrained elevates the importance of personal gain over performance of public benefit duties. Or something like that in the book of rules of human nature.
The need for the law she proposes is based on the truth of the constraint. The absence of observing the truth carries the probability of structural failure.
Elizabeth simply draws a constraint line between the office of POTUS and the private ownership of business by POTUS. Alternately she clicks on the line that POTUS wants to maintain and eliminates it completely. Then she introduces a constraint relationship between a Regulatory Agency AI Constraint enforcement model and POTUS to assure that the constraint is continuously observed. Related to the operation of the Regulatory Agency enforcement responsibility is the requirement for real time monitoring and periodic reporting of compliance by its AI program and action by internal human regulators (or external Attorney General Constraint AI Operating System and Application Programs or human regulators when constraints are violated.)
Congress therefore becomes an Operating System design maintenance and control entity in a check and balance system related to the constraints on the Executive Branch that is all encoded in an Artificial Language Operating System from its current legacy Natural Language Operating System. In that translated Operating system legislators interface with an Open Source Transparent Public System with administration privileges subject to approval of a majority of their legislative peers......or something like that.
The Information Age gives us the model for all of this to be constructed.
Our governance system is......looks and feels like......a constraint based system! But its constraints are ambiguous in nature (loop holes) as a function of its Operating System and Application Programs all expressed in Natural Language.
If the entire system of governance operated on an AI operating system and application programs then SysAdmins (elected officials) could all perform the duties of their office from home state. All relationships between elected officials and the public related to change in the Governance Operating System (any entity having contact with their office) would be through the AI Operating System. That system would be open and transparent and record all interaction content in a BlockChain system that validates the ultimate relational constraint of anything in terms of time and space.
BlockChain is the ultimate constraint to which every change of state complies.
There are multiple points of entry to the solution of any given Problem Domain. One point of entry is necessary to get everyone working on the solution on the same start page. It looks to me like our existence in the natural world is subject to the constraint laws of nature. RealTime and RealSpace being big constraints. The big bubble we all work within in our natural world. We can exceed that natural constraint in our conceptual world but we cannot escape the constraint of expressing what we can exceed in our conceptual dreams and schema in the Here/EternalNow constraint of our natural world.
Our Operating System and Application Programs to address our ProblemDomain of existence in the here and now are ultimately and fundamentally constraint based in nature. Relatively unconstrained in our dreams and schemes related to an open ended future of possibilities but the success of implementing the experimental future is tested by how we draw it into the present BlockChain stream that turns it into the truth of history.
Artificial Intelligence is our best tool to reduce ambiguity in making the future reality to accomplish our collective governance and common good.
When the precise (but what we now call Artificial) Language transforms to a less ambiguous implementation of a common universal Natural Language 2.0 then the conceptual machines we create, like our Governance Machine can be expressed to solve the Problem Domain of our Governance Operating System and Application Program.
The precise Point of Entry to the biggest Problem Domain of our Human Existence looks to me like the concept drawing our future into the present at the price of establishing a monetary debt that constrains us to pay back the future is an absolutely fallacious constraint. Perhaps inherited by the religious conceptual notion that our individual and collective existence is based on conceptual pay debt to the future settled in term of real time pay back....with interest. A conceptual notion entirely of our own creation that finds itself in the model our debt based monetary system.
AI systems are of our own conceptual creation. Free of the ambiguity of our human nature what would AI tell us about what ultimate constraint to build our future on. To draw our future into the present?
Future Debt constraint paid back in Real Time is not the price to pay for our Monetary System.
Our Monetary System must not be constrained in that manner.
All systems are subject to constraint but what natural law system is constrained by payback of future debt constraint?
Constraint based grammar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint-based_grammar
"A generative grammar lists all the transformations, merges, movements, and deletions that can result in all well-formed sentences, while constraint-based grammars, take the opposite approach, allowing anything that is not otherwise constrained. "The grammar is nothing but a set of contraints that structures are required to satisfy in order to be considered well-formed."[1] "A constrain-based grammar is more like a data base or a knowledge representation system than it is like a collection of algorithms."[2]
Alan Boring participated in this publication: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ipsjjip/24/6/24_917/_pdf
Babelsberg: http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~borning/papers/felgentreff-babelsberg-semantics-2014.pdf
https://www.holaportal.com/publication/babelsberg-specifying-and-solving-constraints-on-object-behavior-9465/
constraint based natural language parse
This link squares off concepts of (mission) imperatives with (financial) constraints.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/fiscal-and-financial-issues-for-21st-century-cities/
"More and more, solutions to urban challenges involve
creative approaches that circumvent the constraints
of traditional governmental bureaucracies
through greater collaboration with the private sector
and civil society. Yet no amount of innovation
can escape the need to tackle fiscal constraints and
set up mechanisms that allow for a predictable
flow of funding from national and regional governments
to cities. Mapping these arrangements
presents a daunting challenge for city leaders. The
underlying decision-making structures and the
merits of governance arrangements also need to
be assessed from a national perspective if the cities
of the future are to be better and more effectively
governed."
Shifting my thinking toward a philosophical view of Imperatives and Constraints:
If we model our conceptual world on the order of the natural world are the Laws of Nature Imperative or Constraint based?
Side thought: Nature does not borrow physical resources from the future to support real time application on contractual debt terms to pay back the loan. It does not draw the future into the present.....at any price. It evidently cannot. I can't come up with an example. The natural world is solely a function of its BlockChain past of space and time of relational imperative or constrained events.
Maybe nothing is Imperative in the natural world except Space and Time. Everything else is an extremely complex and beautiful interaction of things constraining one another......leading to....
........the Balance of Nature?
Is an Imperative and all Imperatives in the role of the independent declarative based Subject dictating the relationship to an Object only simply and truly a creature of our conceptually created domain more accurately described as Moral Imperative? It is Imperative because we say it is Imperative with an assigned value and therefore dominating design?
There is a sift taking place in the world of programming from Imperative declarative base to Constraint based. Maybe more in tune, more efficient and elegant to solve problems in the same manner as the Natural World solves problems for itself?
No comments:
Post a Comment