0

possibly a newbie question here.
I heard that if a real AI were to exist it would have to evolve, by that I think it means it should be able to write new code then run itself with the new code. Could this be possible in a compiled language like C/C++?

Just wondering, thanks.

closed as too broad by user40980, Kilian Foth, GrandmasterB, GlenH7, World Engineer Nov 13 '14 at 0:54

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • rather an outright duplicate of Is it imaginable to teach a machine how to program itself to a defined specification?... – gnat Nov 12 '14 at 21:34
  • @gnat I'm curious... I didn't see that question you linked to. – shoham Nov 12 '14 at 21:35
  • 1
    A person can copy and paste a program, make some changes, recompile and run the program. Why couldn't an AI computer do exactly the same thing? – Dunk Nov 12 '14 at 21:44
  • 3
    @gnat: Not even remotely a duplicate. – Robert Harvey Nov 12 '14 at 23:38
  • Something strange is going on here - four people thought the question was worth their time to answer, but none have upvoted the question. – andy256 Nov 13 '14 at 2:44
2

You can write an interpreter in a compiled language that executes a self-modifying, domain-specific language whose instructions are held in a mutable data structure of some sort.

So yes, it's possible.

If your question is "can I do it with the original target language using the original compiler," that, too, is possible, if you write a program that writes a program in the original language and then runs a script to compile and execute it. But that would be very difficult to do, and probably impractical.

  • But if I do that I would have to terminate the original program. Or I would keep it running until I find that the new program is stable, but that's problematic because that program might mutate and then I can have infinite programs in theory... – shoham Nov 13 '14 at 5:00
  • It's not necessary to terminate the original program; it could load the compiled code as a library and execute it in its own process. – Jules Nov 13 '14 at 8:32
1

In the old days, languages (often forms of Assembly) used to be designed with instructions specifically set aside for self-mutating code. This means you could easily tell the program to change itself while it's running, which was used for performance improvements. The key word here is "easily", because although this went out of style decades ago, as a result of computers getting fast enough to not need something this cryptic and hard to follow, hackers today still use Assembly to play tricks on the computer hardware to overwrite memory they shouldn't have access to - potentially the instructions of their currently executing program that have been loaded into memory. And since you can embed a good bit of Assembly into C++, that's one way you could say a C++ program can self-mutate; although a good operating system these days should have reasonable security measures to block things like this in either case.

  • 1
    Wrong. Self modifying code fell out of use because it was so !@#$% hard to see what the code was doing when it went wrong. – andy256 Nov 12 '14 at 23:30
  • @andy256 That's what I said. I said that computers got fast enough to not need something that cryptic. I've changed the wording slightly now though to emphasize it. – Panzercrisis Nov 12 '14 at 23:30
  • When my team was banning self modifying code we didn't consider that the machine was fast enough. It was only because we couldn't know what configuration the code was in when it crashed, and hence couldn't debug it. At 3am, with a $M of cheques that had to out by 6, it doesn't matter how fast the machine is when it's not running the code! – andy256 Nov 13 '14 at 2:41
1

Yes, but…

It has been long known that machine code for Von Neumann architecture machines is too "brittle" to reasonably mimic some life-based dataprocessing.

As a simple example, if you alter a single bit in a machine instruction, you won't necessarily get something useful, you may very well crash the processor or program.

Contrariwise, biological systems are more resilient to alterations. If you change a DNA base from A to C, you will get a protein out which might even be more useful than the unaltered state (it is more likely to have no effect or deleterious effect, but the whole machine doesn't stop). Similarly if you have less of enzyme Q for some reason, things won't crash, they'll just not work as well as they might otherwise.

Very productive work has been done with less fragile "machine code" running on virtual machines, but the last detailed reading I'd done on the subject was from an an ancient Proceedings from the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity so I'm sure the approach has been refined considerably since then.

0

First of all, if by "real AI" you are referring to Strong AI, this is a yet undecided question. That question has some scientific, some ontological, and some religious aspects, and opinions widely differ.

What was commonly referred to as AI by software programmers is merely branches of machine learning, or computer science / electrical engineering / signal processing / linguistics in general.

In one kind of machine learning algorithms, the inputs and outputs are matrices of numbers. The "system" that map the inputs to the outputs are also matrices of numbers. Thus, those algorithms reduce a practical problem down to some mathematical calculations.

There are many other practical AI algorithms and implementations, employing many other mechanism and branches of domain knowledge.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.