Is LISP 'required learning' for artificial intelligence

>>60966185
No. AI works just fine in any imperative lang

>>60966185
Maybe in 1980

>>60966185

symbolic AI methods have been almost entirely built around Lisp semantics

>>60966333

but like this guy said that was more in the period from 1960-1995

>>60966249
>>60966333
>>60966375
So, I don't 'have' to learn LISP.
But it'd be a boon, right?

>>60966185
>Why exactly is Lisp considered an AI programming language?
>While a lot of replies have given a correct historical answer to your exact question, (namely, "Because that's where Lisp comes from"), I want to answer the closely related question, "Why is Lisp good for AI?"
>Firstly, while we can argue that Lisp is good for Good Old Fashioned AI (GOFAI), which is the logically-grounded symbolic approach to AI that McCarthy and his followers had in mind, it's quite possible that if you want to do non-symbolic AI, such as neural networks, support vector machines or other kinds of statistical machine learning, you're better off with a fast, statically-typed language with good numerical performance like C or C++. If your system uses both symbolic and non-symbolic techniques, the decision between Lisp and a static language is harder.

>AI is huge. Neural networks is not the only kind of AI. In the old fashion, there are at least three kinds of AI, such as Symbolism, Connectionism and Behaviorism. This aspect of classification may be obsolete because modern algorithms usually have those two or all property.
>Symbolism is come from the oldest formal inference system called logic, Connectionism is come from biological neural networks, and Behaviorism is actually a methodology of psychology.

>Currently popular approaches include statistical methods, computational intelligence and traditional symbolic AI.
>ML is a very different field from the old school AI that made heavy use of lisp.
>Old AI was all about symbolic manipulation, and for this lisp is king.
>ML fundamentally relies upon vectors, matrices, and tensors. For this some kind of array-based programming language (I recommend numpy and python) is much more important.
>I did try using common lisp for ML a long time ago. I ended up implementing in macros array-broadcasting, and with hindsight it was remarkably close to a shitty version of numpy.

File: 1497654498663.jpg (8KB, 239x211px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 239x211px

>>60966185
>symbolic language
>program is data is program

>>60966185
Not really. You can write in python just fine. More complex, and more efficient implementations will require something better like lisps or just C++ with the right libraries.

>>60966903
>>60967024
Informative and concise, thank you.

>>60967169
I used arrows because I'm not the writer, actually I copied from
https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/r9g0c/why_exactly_is_lisp_considered_an_ai_programming/c442bfi
https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/1rg206/where_should_i_start_if_i_want_to_get_into_ai/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1p3jgj/is_anyone_still_interested_in_lisp_is_there/

>>60966185
Most AI these days is done with a python wrapper. You will be a ridiculously good Lisp programmer if you do Norvig's old AI book (the one done in Common Lisp) and eventually it's all going to go back to Lisp anyway.

>>60966572

Just learn LISP if you want to, faggot

>>60967361
I did wonder.
Doesn't make it any less concise.
Still though, thank you.

>>60967389
>>60967393
So, I just need to suck it up and learn LISP?
Fair enough.

>>60967523
(lrn lisp u 'faggot)

>>60967549
I will!