1. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 06, 2002
- 438 views
> > Start with worm instinct, get a full-potential worm. > > Start with monkey instinct, get a full-potential monkey. > > Start with human instinct, get a full-potential human. > > I haveto draw the line there. Some of us are "full potential > humans", and are discarded. Kat, are you saying you've reached your full potential?! I find that hard to believe. As long as you have a brain and it can learn, you've not reached your full potential, right? Every human being has flaws. What if we could "create" a human without flaws? Probably impossible... > Yet humans want to build electronic clones of humans, to do > what we could be doing, but aren't allowed to do. The more one wraps one's brain around AI, the more one realizes that without an exponential leap in hardware processing capability, we ain't gonna realize the dream for another hundred years or so... or 40 years, as that one website hypothesized.
2. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 06, 2002
- 438 views
> As far as finding out what is instinctual for a worm,first of all > that would entail finding out what kind of worm we are talking about, > and then doing research on that particular kind. I think it'd be easier to invent our own virtual species of worm that lives on a PC. The problem is, we want to create a sentient entity, right? > And thats not to say > we couldn't just invent a type of worm that has instincts that we > provide.After all, we will become,in effect,its creator! Probably the easiest option, wouldn't you say? There are two approaches: 1. create an actual AI entity whose "world" is the PC (+internet). The PC's hardware thus becomes its "body." 2. EMULATE an AI entity in an artificial (emulated) virtual environment (a worm in a glass bowl, for instance). I don't know which would be easier. I'd like to hear thoughts on it before I delve into it more.
3. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 06, 2002
- 398 views
> When you talk about visibility,in my mind your talking about graphics, > Im sure we can come up with some 2d stuff that looks great. When I talk about the AI entity's "visual" and "aural" abilities, I'm talking hardware components. You would have to answer, "How does this virtual creature 'see?'" "How will this virtual creature 'hear'?" Obviously, you'll have to have graphic and sound processing code (code to analyze a "picture" and be able to make distinctions in what it finds; code to take noise and find relevance somewhere), which already takes this project beyond a short-term exercise in fun. :)
4. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by dm31 at uow.edu.au Nov 06, 2002
- 397 views
Maybe we should start with the very basics first. Maybe get some 'brain base' to be able to play tic-tac-toe and sort of learn, then move on to slight more complex games like neutron and some other simple ones, then work on expanding it.
5. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 06, 2002
- 399 views
> Maybe we should start with the very basics first. > > Maybe get some 'brain base' to be able to play tic-tac-toe... Then you're simply making an expert system that can play tic-tac-toe. And playing tic-tac-toe is no easy feat. You say that's the basics, but you've gone waaaaay beyond the basics to suggest that our AI entity can play a game and learn from it! I'm thinking just a virtual worm (of our own design) in a virtual bowl of dirt where we sprinkle some water and food every once-in-a-while and see what happens. To be truly AI, you have to think "primitive." Nay, "very primitive." :)
6. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by mistertrik at hotmail.com Nov 06, 2002
- 403 views
I'd like to see some information, tutorials, or libraries that can use simple neural nets. That's the sort of thing I want to get involved in, but I don't know much about them, or how they are implemented. ===================================================== .______<-------------------\__ / _____<--------------------__|=== ||_ <-------------------/ \__| Mr Trick >From: dm31 at uow.edu.au >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com >To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com> >Subject: RE: The A.I. Project II >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:18:44 +1100 > > >Maybe we should start with the very basics first. > >Maybe get some 'brain base' to be able to play tic-tac-toe and sort of >learn, then move on to slight more complex games like neutron and some >other simple ones, then work on expanding it. > >==^^=============================================================== >This email was sent to: mistertrik at hotmail.com > >
7. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by Kat <kat at kogeijin.com> Nov 06, 2002
- 401 views
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:00, C. K. Lester wrote: > > > > Start with worm instinct, get a full-potential worm. > > > Start with monkey instinct, get a full-potential monkey. > > > Start with human instinct, get a full-potential human. > > > > I haveto draw the line there. Some of us are "full potential > > humans", and are discarded. > > Kat, are you saying you've reached your full potential?! I find that hard to > believe. As long as you have a brain and it can learn, you've not reached your > full potential, right? Wrong. I can feel my abilities slipping, and it's a proven fact that living in total isolation from society will cause what i feel: slower wit, less memory, and apathy about everything. I go 3 weeks routinely without laying eyes on another human, much less speaking to a human in real life, unless i goto a store to buy something. So yes, i feel like i am past my peak, even tho it was a much lower peak than i should have been reaching. Creating a sentient Ai tells me the machine is valued over me. I just got a price for *me* to get dsl. It will be installed 60 miles from me, cost $80/month (plus installation), in a section south of Birmingham noted for high crime and drug abuse rates. There will be no security for the installation, and it's a 2hour commute to drive there. Either that, or i learn Perl to get the nix shell in Netherlands operational. Kat
8. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by dm31 at uow.edu.au Nov 06, 2002
- 407 views
|Then you're simply making an expert system that can play tic-tac-toe. | |And playing tic-tac-toe is no easy feat. You say that's the basics, but |you've gone waaaaay beyond the basics to suggest that our AI entity can play |a game and learn from it! | |I'm thinking just a virtual worm (of our own design) in a virtual bowl of |dirt where we sprinkle some water and food every once-in-a-while and see |what happens. | |To be truly AI, you have to think "primitive." Nay, "very primitive." :) I think you missed how I meant it. expert system would be one one of 'implementing' it, but that isn't how or what I mean. I had a very long discussion with some research groups here at uni awhile ago, and we generally agreed that starting with a basic brain and teach it to play tic-tac-toe was one of the best starting points for a little AI project. Firstly. Any AI will of course have to come with some pre-programmed specifics otherwise they would just sit and not interact at all. So say it starts of 'know' how to place pieces on the board, and that it is taking in turns. Then you need it to understand that if you say, "You lost" that it is a negative thing, and "You Win" is a good thing. That way we could have it 'learn' which is the best combinations to play give how the other player plays. Tic-tac-toe is I believe on of the easiest games to start with. Easy to see how it is progressing. Then maybe would could move onto the 3d version of tic-tac-toe, that would give a bigger chance for more complex AI techniques to be tested, with pattern match, since there are more options. etc, etc.
9. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by dm31 at uow.edu.au Nov 06, 2002
- 389 views
|I'd like to see some information, tutorials, or libraries that can use |simple neural nets. That's the sort of thing I want to get involved in, but |I don't know much about them, or how they are implemented. Open google and run a search for neural net. There a some very good gui neural net programs out there that let you build a net visually and teach it 'visually' etc. Ther even come with some sample nets premade. One I downloaded even a ocr net made that worked pretty well. I can't remember there names thou. If you can't find any good ones, tell me, and I'll go look for you. Cheers, Dan
10. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by mistertrik at hotmail.com Nov 06, 2002
- 392 views
Perhaps I should clarify... I'd like to see a EUPHORIA neural net library. ===================================================== .______<-------------------\__ / _____<--------------------__|=== ||_ <-------------------/ \__| Mr Trick >From: dm31 at uow.edu.au >Subject: RE: The A.I. Project II >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:49:45 +1100 > > >|I'd like to see some information, tutorials, or libraries that can >use >|simple neural nets. That's the sort of thing I want to get involved >in, but >|I don't know much about them, or how they are implemented. > >Open google and run a search for neural net. There a some very good >gui neural net programs out there that let you build a net visually >and teach it 'visually' etc. Ther even come with some sample nets >premade. One I downloaded even a ocr net made that worked pretty well. > >I can't remember there names thou. If you can't find any good ones, >tell me, and I'll go look for you. > >Cheers, >Dan > >==^^=============================================================== >This email was sent to: mistertrik at hotmail.com > >
11. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by dm31 at uow.edu.au Nov 06, 2002
- 386 views
|Perhaps I should clarify... | |I'd like to see a EUPHORIA neural net library. Check the archives. I'm sure there is one an old n-net lib in there.
12. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by dubetyrant at hotmail.com Nov 06, 2002
- 404 views
C.K., The environment itself brings a fascinating question.The idea of an a.i existing within the computers architecture is very appealing to me.But the question is, how will we see its progress? Or if it can express itself,how will we see what it "says"? The computer is all about input/output right? The logical "output" would initially be text,English language text! Now lets take it to the next level: lets say we program a strong instinct within it to live, a strong,gut instinct to survive,and lets say it needs to eat to survive,so now we have a being that is hungry,very hungry.What does a computer "eat"? It eats input!We feed it information!If its online, the world feeds it information! On to digestion, what is digestion to us? We take what our bodies need and send the waste to the draught.What is digestion to an a.i? When the a.i digests,it will be processing the input,but beyond the basic computers processing cycle,the a.i. is smarter,it filters the information,it finds relevance and it stores the information in its hardware,its body.What it does not find relevance for in its body of information,it discards. On to output,now that the a.i. has information, I guess we could ask it questions and it would gives us answers,but all that is is a glorified database... This is where the intelligence part of artificial intelligence comes in.The a.i. only stores the information that it WANTS to store,based on the REASONS it has found RELEVANCE TO ITS OWN GOALS.We establish these goals,we create its instincts. Furthermore as to the question of the virtual fishtank and the virtual worm.Those would not be emulations if the a.i. chose to represent himself as such.Graphics are just another way for the computer to output information.While we know the a.i. really exists in electronic pulses,we could be able to see it in this parallel graphical world.For instance,after we type in input,we could see a peice of food being dropped into its cage,or its fishtank whatever the case may be.What if it learned to create its own graphics and chose to represent itself in a different way,graphically? So I would choose to have both environments,first a text based environment,and eventually a parallel,graphical environment.Then I would move towards finding different methods of input such as video cameras and audio devices. What do you think? JDUBE >From: "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com >To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com> >Subject: RE: The A.I. Project II >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:07:11 -0600 > > > > As far as finding out what is instinctual for a worm,first of all > > that would entail finding out what kind of worm we are talking about, > > and then doing research on that particular kind. > >I think it'd be easier to invent our own virtual species of worm that lives >on a PC. > >The problem is, we want to create a sentient entity, right? > > > And thats not to say > > we couldn't just invent a type of worm that has instincts that we > > provide.After all, we will become,in effect,its creator! > >Probably the easiest option, wouldn't you say? > >There are two approaches: > >1. create an actual AI entity whose "world" is the PC (+internet). The PC's >hardware thus becomes its "body." >2. EMULATE an AI entity in an artificial (emulated) virtual environment (a >worm in a glass bowl, for instance). > >I don't know which would be easier. I'd like to hear thoughts on it before >I >delve into it more. > > >
13. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au> Nov 06, 2002
- 408 views
Kat wrote: >Either that, or i learn Perl to get the > nix shell in Netherlands operational. Kat, Maybe I shouldn’t write this on the list ... ( to late ) If your "serious" about writing commercial software (whatever type) you should seriously consider what other languages are available and the pros and cons of each. I like Euphoria, and it's lots of fun. I particularly enjoy the mailing list and have to admit the Euphoria community is the best bunch of people I have come across on the net. Saying that, I would be very careful choosing to write commercial software with Euphoria. The lack of threading and exceptions are the two biggest drawbacks for any “server” type of software. The lack of good quality libraries in numerous areas of computing and the lack of people using the current crop of libraries must be considered before jumping into a commercial product with Euphoria aswell. I haven’t really followed the mailing list threads up to your last email so I’m not really sure what your trying to do … and I’m not saying don’t use Euphoria ... but I am saying you should look at the alternatives :) Maybe you should document what features you find critical (in a language) For you to complete your project and post it to the list and see what suggestions come back. I’d be happy to discuss details with you further if you want. Regards, Ray Smith http://rays-web.com
14. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by Kat <kat at kogeijin.com> Nov 06, 2002
- 435 views
On 6 Nov 2002, at 23:15, dubetyrant at hotmail.com wrote: > > C.K., > The environment itself brings a fascinating question.The idea of an a.i > existing within the computers architecture is very appealing to me.But > the question is, how will we see its progress? Or if it can express > itself,how will we see what it "says"? The computer is all about > input/output right? The logical "output" would initially be text,English > language text! Or not English! How about Italian or Malaysian! > Now lets take it to the next level: lets > say we program a strong instinct within it to live, a strong,gut > instinct to survive,and lets say it needs to eat to survive,so now > we have a being that is hungry,very hungry.What does a computer "eat"? > It eats input!We feed it information!If its online, the world feeds > it information! Well, if you have enough bandwidth, anyhow <sigh>. > On to digestion, what is digestion to us? We take what our bodies > need and send the waste to the draught.What is digestion to an a.i? > When the a.i digests,it will be processing the input,but beyond the > basic computers processing cycle,the a.i. is smarter,it filters the > information,it finds relevance and it stores the information in its > hardware,its body.What it does not find relevance for in its body > of information,it discards. > On to output,now that the a.i. has information, I guess we could > ask it questions and it would gives us answers,but all that is is > a glorified database... <tongue in cheek> Tell me about it. </tongue in cheek> > This is where the intelligence part of artificial intelligence comes > in.The a.i. only stores the information that it WANTS to store,based > on the REASONS it has found RELEVANCE TO ITS OWN GOALS.We establish > these goals,we create its instincts. > Furthermore as to the question of the virtual fishtank and the virtual > worm.Those would not be emulations if the a.i. chose to > represent himself Or herself. Remember, on Star Trek, Data's offspring "chose" to be female. > as such.Graphics are just another way for the > computer to output information.While we know the a.i. really exists > in electronic pulses, And mammals (humans included) exist as electrochemical impulses. > we could be able to see it in this parallel > graphical world.For instance,after we type in input,we could see a > peice of food being dropped into its cage,or its fishtank whatever > the case may be.What if it learned to create its own graphics and > chose to represent itself in a different way,graphically? > So I would choose to have both environments,first a text based > environment,and eventually a parallel,graphical environment.Then > I would move towards finding different methods of input such as > video cameras and audio devices. > What do you think? I asked someone about using some program to make 3D slices of a figure for a bot output on a screen. Naturally, this whole project fell thru also. It's been done, but not by anyone i know. Besides, to do this online, big files need to be sent, meaning bandwidth again. So i'll be sitting here watching everyone else do it, as usual. Kat
15. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by Kat <kat at kogeijin.com> Nov 06, 2002
- 405 views
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:33, C. K. Lester wrote: > > > Maybe we should start with the very basics first. > > > > Maybe get some 'brain base' to be able to play tic-tac-toe... > > Then you're simply making an expert system that can play tic-tac-toe. > > And playing tic-tac-toe is no easy feat. You say that's the basics, but > you've gone waaaaay beyond the basics to suggest that our AI entity can play a > game and learn from it! Tic-tac-toe is a very restricted domain, and a very restricted solution set. You can make a "computer" that plays that game with relays. I worked out the logic for it in the 7th grade. It didn't learn. Kat
16. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by Kat <kat at kogeijin.com> Nov 06, 2002
- 439 views
On 7 Nov 2002, at 14:29, mistertrik at hotmail.com wrote: > > I'd like to see some information, tutorials, or libraries that can use > simple neural nets. That's the sort of thing I want to get involved in, but I > don't know much about them, or how they are implemented. Think "analog neurons". Think "cells" with multiple inputs, multiple outputs, and mediated by the "chemicals" in the bloodstream and intracellular space. Most neural nets have a few layers of cells with some feedback mechanism, some are moderated with a traditional computer, by changing the thresholds at which what makes what cells fire when. This can be done easily with Eu sequences. Kat
17. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by Kat <kat at kogeijin.com> Nov 07, 2002
- 418 views
On 7 Nov 2002, at 6:08, Ray Smith wrote: > > > Kat wrote: > > >Either that, or i learn Perl to get the > > nix shell in Netherlands operational. > > Kat, > > Maybe I shouldn’t write this on the list ... ( to late ) > > If your "serious" about writing commercial software (whatever type) > you should seriously consider what other languages are > available and the pros and cons of each. If i had the exu socks code for bi-directional http relaying on a freebsd shell, i can probably get the rest of the necessities done overnight in Eu. If it's done in Perl, i haveto get someone else to write the *entire* program, and i have a learning curve before i can change anything. Both perl 5.8.0 and the latest exu are installed on the box. I have permission to run the proxy within limits, and if i pass those limits my connection will be swamped anyhow and i hope to have income by that time, if that time comes, and i can blow the money on bandwidth more locally to me, so i won't need the shell. The shell will provide bandwidth and a static ip to me. Kat
18. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 07, 2002
- 427 views
dm31 at uow.edu.au wrote: > I had a very long discussion with some research > groups here at uni awhile ago, and we generally agreed that starting > with a basic brain and teach it to play tic-tac-toe was one of the > best starting points for a little AI project. Therein lies your problem... Where ya gonna get that "basic brain?" Are you going to fill that brain with knowledge, or are you going to fill it with the tools to gain knowledge (or both)? > So say it starts off 'knowing' how to place pieces on the board, > and that it is taken in turns. Even before that you have to start with it knowing what a piece is, what a board is, what a game is, what competition means, what winning and losing means, what a turn is, what an opponent is, etc. etc... Give it "tic-tac-toe" instincts and let it live and learn. (The problem with any AI entity is going to be programming the instincts.) > Then you need it to understand that if you say, "You lost" that > it is a negative thing, and "You Win" is a good thing. At this point it needs to be understanding "consequences" and its relation to the "win/lose" instinct (or something like that). You say it's a negative thing, but has it learned what a "negative" thing is? How is it going to care what is negative/positive? You might say, "You lost" and it might respond, "So what?" or "What does that mean?" > That way we could have it 'learn' which is the best combinations to > play give how the other player plays. Tic-tac-toe is I believe on of > the easiest games to start with. Easy to see how it is progressing. You've got to start off with an "infant TTT-playing AI entity" that functions on instinct alone, then let it "grow," interacting with it and "raising" it, or guiding it. Otherwise, you're going to have to do more programming at the start than is humanly possible.
19. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 07, 2002
- 423 views
dubetyrant at hotmail.com wrote: > The environment itself brings a fascinating question.The idea of an a.i > existing within the computers architecture is very appealing to me. Yeah, I like the thought, too. This kind of entity wouldn't need to eat or sleep or whatever. It's the kind that should develop extremely fast because there are limited hurdles on its path to full-potential development. > But the question is, how will we see its progress? Let it act (and interact) in a window. It's not going to have any body in which to convey any language, so it must be totally verbal... UNLESS you want to provide a graphical body for it (on screen)... but that would be more complexity than we need right now. > language text! Now lets take it to the next level: lets > say we program a strong instinct within it to live, a strong,gut > instinct to survive,and lets say it needs to eat to survive... If you have a purely code-based entity, it won't need to eat. And it will have no need for sleep. It will also have absolutely no way to prevent its creator from "turning it off" (killing it), which might be a scary proposition for it. :) Regardless, no eating/digesting required. > So I would choose to have both environments, first a text based > environment,and eventually a parallel, graphical environment. Yes. Its learning to understand text input would be analogous to a human baby's learning language... At first it wouldn't understand what we were saying... But, eventually, it would notice patterns and maybe start to repeat those patterns and associate those patterns with environmental objects ("dada" = that thing that induces a laugh response by touching me, "mama" = that thing that satisfies my hunger response and takes away my "uncomfortable-poopy-diaper" response). "No" would be associated with things in the negative. "Yes" in the opposite. Of course, we're not talking about a worm here. Maybe we should just talk about a worm...? I dunno.
20. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 07, 2002
- 409 views
jslezak at luc.edu wrote: > How about a dog AI. I think we need to stay away from emulating an existing creature, unless it is very simple. When you suggest using a dog, now we really have to get into physiology... the brain signaling muscles to move. Let's just create our own worm.
21. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by dm31 at uow.edu.au Nov 07, 2002
- 408 views
Before you read my replies below, plz note that I am not writing this as a suggest for true AI. For us to make true AI while doing this is not quite same :P There are many ppl who have dedicated there lives to this thing. Done PhD's on it, and they haven't succeed with true AI yet. Maybe we should start of with a more realistic goal of a proggie that can 'learn' how to do something better as it collects more data. Go read some of the indepth AI papers out there to get an idea of where ppl are heading with AI. Check out some papers on Neural nets too. They are alot more complex then may appear at first glance. try here or interesting and informative reading: http://www.emsl.pnl.gov:2080/proj/neuron/neural/what.html My idea is just something to start with, get something with result working, something that can be built on. |> I had a very long discussion with some research |> groups here at uni awhile ago, and we generally agreed that starting |> with a basic brain and teach it to play tic-tac-toe was one of the |> best starting points for a little AI project. | |Therein lies your problem... Where ya gonna get that "basic brain?" errr. Thats what your programming :P |Are you going to fill that brain with knowledge, or are you going to |fill it with the tools to gain knowledge (or both)? | |> So say it starts off 'knowing' how to place pieces on the board, |> and that it is taken in turns. | |Even before that you have to start with it knowing what a piece is, what |a board is, what a game is, what competition means, what winning and |losing means, what a turn is, what an opponent is, etc. etc... |Give it "tic-tac-toe" instincts and let it live and learn. (The problem |with any AI entity is going to be programming the instincts.) Not really. What does it care at this point what a 'piece' is, or what competition is. It just needs to be able to distinguish between a success and a fail. Start with the basics, and work your way up. |> Then you need it to understand that if you say, "You lost" that |> it is a negative thing, and "You Win" is a good thing. | |At this point it needs to be understanding "consequences" and its |relation to the "win/lose" instinct (or something like that). You say |it's a negative thing, but has it learned what a "negative" thing is? |How is it going to care what is negative/positive? You might say, "You |lost" and it might respond, "So what?" or "What does that mean?" read above. |> That way we could have it 'learn' which is the best combinations to |> play give how the other player plays. Tic-tac-toe is I believe on of |> the easiest games to start with. Easy to see how it is progressing. | |You've got to start off with an "infant TTT-playing AI entity" that |functions on instinct alone, then let it "grow," interacting with it and |"raising" it, or guiding it. Hmmm. Isn't that what I said?? |Otherwise, you're going to have to do more |programming at the start than is humanly possible. With something as simple TTT, you could program a computer TTT that could never lose a series if statements in a short period of time. :P There isn't that many combinations on a 3x3 board.... Hope that cleared it up a bit. Dan
22. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 07, 2002
- 407 views
dm31 at uow.edu.au wrote: > Before you read my replies below, plz note that I am not writing > this as a suggestion for true AI. Oh. Well, when people say "AI" I expect they mean "AI." If you're talking about an expert system (ES), then that's not AI. Doesn't even come close to resembling AI. At least that clears a few things up... ;) > Done PhD's on it, and they haven't succeed with true AI yet. That's 'cuz they're dumb. Okay, just kiddin'. They are just approaching it from the wrong angle, that's all. And we don't have the technology yet. > Maybe we should start of with a more realistic goal of a > proggie that can 'learn' how to do something better as it > collects more data. Aren't there programs that already do this? What are you going to contribute to that particular topic? Is it just to do it in Eu? > Go read some of the indepth AI papers out there to get an idea of > where ppl are heading with AI. I'm going to guess that the general state of the industry is that they're heading no where. Too many blocks, in hardware, in software, and philosophy. > My idea is just something to start with, get something with result > working, something that can be built on. You can't "build on" an expert system. You haven't given it the hardware or software to be able to be AI. You can give an AIE expert system knowledge, but it won't go the other way around. You can't make an ES sentient. > |Therein lies your problem... Where ya gonna get that "basic brain?" > > errr. Thats what your programming :P You suggest that we are going to emulate a brain via software... I propose that you better find a very primitive brain to emulate. > |Even before that you have to start with it knowing what a piece is, > what > |a board is, what a game is, what competition means, what winning and > |losing means, what a turn is, what an opponent is, etc. etc... > |Give it "tic-tac-toe" instincts and let it live and learn. (The > problem > |with any AI entity is going to be programming the instincts.) > > Not really. What does it care at this point what a 'piece' is, or > what competition is. It just needs to be able to distinguish > between a success and a fail. Start with the basics, and work your > way up. True, an expert system doesn't need to "know" all these things, but an AI entity should. Since you're talking ES and not AI, what you say is valid. And starting this way will NOT let you get to AI... just a more efficient expert system. You can't start with ES and get to AI. > |You've got to start off with an "infant TTT-playing AI entity" > |that functions on instinct alone, then let it "grow," > |interacting with it and > |"raising" it, or guiding it. > > Hmmm. Isn't that what I said?? No. Not even close. You're proposing an expert system, not an AI entity. > With something as simple TTT, you could program a computer TTT that > could never lose a series if statements in a short period of > time. :P There isn't that many combinations on a 3x3 board.... There was the suggestion of Connect-4. Sounds reasonable to me.
23. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 07, 2002
- 393 views
> http://www.emsl.pnl.gov:2080/proj/neuron/neural/what.html Site: "Another way of classifying ANN types is by their method of learning (or training), as some ANNs employ supervised training while others are referred to as unsupervised or self-organizing." Me: "unsupervised or self-organizing" - obviously they don't know what they're talking about. No intelligent being that we know of is able to go from instinct to intelligence on its own, simply because it must come from an instinct-only stage, during which it is at its most vulnerable. Site: "Supervised training is analogous to a student guided by an instructor." Me: The presupposition here is that the student has LEARNED HOW TO LEARN. With AI, though, you cannot just start out with an advanced learner. It's IMPOSSIBLE. An "advanced learner" is way too complex for you to create in the first place. When you try and create an "advanced learner," you've simply created an expert system with all your own biases. The AI entity has to start out much simpler, with the tools (hardware+instincts) to learn (just like the only intelligent creatures we know must do). Site: "Unsupervised algorithms essentially perform clustering of the data into similar groups based on the measured attributes or features serving as inputs to the algorithms. This is analogous to a student who derives the lesson totally on his or her own." Me: What beginning intelligent creature have you ever known was able to learn on its own from the start? Sure, LATER, after it became an advanced learner did it learn how to acquire knowledge itself... but it couldn't start like that.
24. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by Kat <kat at kogeijin.com> Nov 07, 2002
- 411 views
On 7 Nov 2002, at 18:43, C. K. Lester wrote: > > > http://www.emsl.pnl.gov:2080/proj/neuron/neural/what.html > > Site: "Another way of classifying ANN types is by their method of > learning (or training), as some ANNs employ supervised training while > others are referred to as unsupervised or self-organizing." > > Me: "unsupervised or self-organizing" - obviously they don't know what > they're talking about. No intelligent being that we know of is able to > go from instinct to intelligence on its own, simply because it must come > from an instinct-only stage, during which it is at its most vulnerable. It works in reverse too. > Site: "Supervised training is analogous to a student guided by an > instructor." > > Me: The presupposition here is that the student has LEARNED HOW TO > LEARN. With AI, though, you cannot just start out with an advanced > learner. It's IMPOSSIBLE. An "advanced learner" is way too complex for > you to create in the first place. When you try and create an "advanced > learner," you've simply created an expert system with all your own > biases. The AI entity has to start out much simpler, with the tools > (hardware+instincts) to learn (just like the only intelligent creatures > we know must do). I disagree. The parts you don't kow are the quantity and degree of weightings of incentives and disincentives, and those unknowns in knowledge which may become guesses in action. The rest is pattern matching: "my stomach hurts" -- has this happened before? -- match this to incentives pattern map -- match up a pattern of actions to what we are in now "want to cure this, need food" -- match "food" to the actual item irl -- match "food" to what's in the environment -- match a pattern of movement to ingest the food -- match these patterns to patterns of outcomes -- (do not walk up to live elephant and begin eating) -- expect pattern to continue post-ingestion etc > Site: "Unsupervised algorithms essentially perform clustering of the > data into similar groups based on the measured attributes or features > serving as inputs to the algorithms. This is analogous to a student who > derives the lesson totally on his or her own." That's a pattern matching or modification. Truely unexpected pattern matching leads people to run naked thru the streets shouting "Eureka!" if it's good, and become snipers if it's bad. > Me: What beginning intelligent creature have you ever known was able to > learn on its own from the start? Sure, LATER, after it became an > advanced learner did it learn how to acquire knowledge itself... but it > couldn't start like that. Only if a learning activity became a function of enabling an instinct, resulting in positive feedback. I have discovered thru personal experience and machine programming that if there is no feedback, there is no such function generated, no exercizing of memory expansion, no change in incentive weighting, etc. Hence you cannot have the Ai generate it's own node/neuron weighting. Even if it did get some learning, you'll never be able to predict what the outcome is. Given one person on a deserted island, with a pocket knife, infected with AIDS, what incentive do they have to build an electron microscope to research the mechanism of antibodies on HIV, and develop a cure and live happily ever after? The Ai hasto check the weighting. If it has OCD and is really bored, it might try to find a way to generate electricity and build the EM. Otherwise it might just try to get comfy and *seemingly* violate self preservation instincts with euthanasia. We can't predetermine this in our hardcoding, else it won't be an Ai. If you hardcode or build hardware that stresses *your* values, you have a slave. Kat
25. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by mistertrik at hotmail.com Nov 07, 2002
- 415 views
Yes, I did that also. I chose to remove all the code for if it lost a game, because it never did. Every game it'd either win or draw. Kinda boring to play against though. ===================================================== .______<-------------------\__ / _____<--------------------__|=== ||_ <-------------------/ \__| Mr Trick >From: Kat <kat at kogeijin.com> >Subject: RE: The A.I. Project II > > >On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:33, C. K. Lester wrote: > > > > > > Maybe we should start with the very basics first. > > > > > > Maybe get some 'brain base' to be able to play tic-tac-toe... > > > > Then you're simply making an expert system that can play tic-tac-toe. > > > > And playing tic-tac-toe is no easy feat. You say that's the basics, but > > you've gone waaaaay beyond the basics to suggest that our AI entity can >play a > > game and learn from it! > >Tic-tac-toe is a very restricted domain, and a very restricted solution >set. You >can make a "computer" that plays that game with relays. I worked out the >logic for it in the 7th grade. It didn't learn. > >Kat > > >
26. RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by dm31 at uow.edu.au Nov 07, 2002
- 382 views
|Oh. Well, when people say "AI" I expect they mean "AI." If you're |talking about an expert system (ES), then that's not AI. Doesn't even |come close to resembling AI. No sorry. An ES system is complete;y pre-programmed, it does not 'learn' once it is setup. It starts of with a large collection of rules. What I suggested does NOT. |That's 'cuz they're dumb. Okay, just kiddin'. They are just approaching |it from the wrong angle, that's all. And we don't have the technology |yet. Well. There are some really advanced systems out there that are really exciting and show alot of promise. I was once pretty wrapped up in this field and tried to keep current. Some of the stuff they have done with "Robotic" personalilities that were learning english, picking up slang, and identifying via video input was quite suprising |> Maybe we should start of with a more realistic goal of a |> proggie that can 'learn' how to do something better as it |> collects more data. | |Aren't there programs that already do this? What are you going to |contribute to that particular topic? Is it just to do it in Eu? Once I have finished my final exams at uni and get some time, I mostly likely will start to write something along these lines in EU. |> Go read some of the indepth AI papers out there to get an idea of |> where ppl are heading with AI. | |I'm going to guess that the general state of the industry is that |they're heading no where. Too many blocks, in hardware, in software, and |philosophy. read above ^^ |> My idea is just something to start with, get something with result |> working, something that can be built on. | |You can't "build on" an expert system. You haven't given it the hardware |or software to be able to be AI. You can give an AIE expert system |knowledge, but it won't go the other way around. You can't make an ES |sentient. Read what I said at the start. There is a big difference between a ES and what I proposed. |> |Therein lies your problem... Where ya gonna get that "basic brain?" |> |> errr. Thats what your programming :P | |You suggest that we are going to emulate a brain via software... I |propose that you better find a very primitive brain to emulate. It was in quotes for a reason. "Brain" was refering to the section of software that did the learning etc. IE, the neural net, pattern matching code, etc, etc, excluding interface & wrapper. It is commonly used to refer to this when discussing *AI* |> |Even before that you have to start with it knowing what a piece is, |> what |> |a board is, what a game is, what competition means, what winning and |> |losing means, what a turn is, what an opponent is, etc. etc... |> |Give it "tic-tac-toe" instincts and let it live and learn. (The |> problem |> |with any AI entity is going to be programming the instincts.) |> |> Not really. What does it care at this point what a 'piece' is, or |> what competition is. It just needs to be able to distinguish |> between a success and a fail. Start with the basics, and work your |> way up. | |True, an expert system doesn't need to "know" all these things, but an |AI entity should. Since you're talking ES and not AI, what you say is |valid. AS I said, it isn't an ES system. A ES system is a static database of rules and results. An ES system uses input data to do through and test rules. It then checks which result is most probable depending on which rules are valid. And ES system will repeatedly give you the same result given the same input. What I suggested creates & changes it's own rules as it is guided along it's learning curve, just like we do. We we were a very young baby, did we know what "Food" was. No. It was just instinct to eat stuff that was put near our mouths, hence a baby must be watched for eatting small toys etc. We 'learn' what food is as we grow up a bit. Just think of this as a half *AI* at a very young stage. |And starting this way will NOT let you get to AI... just a more |efficient expert system. You can't start with ES and get to AI. Above ^^ This is very different from an ES, and infact forms a basis for cores of an attempted to do AI. |> |You've got to start off with an "infant TTT-playing AI entity" |> |that functions on instinct alone, then let it "grow," |> |interacting with it and |> |"raising" it, or guiding it. |> |> Hmmm. Isn't that what I said?? | |No. Not even close. You're proposing an expert system, not an AI entity. Yes it was. I said give it the basic abilities to play TTT, with out telling 'how'. Then let it "learn" (grow) by playing againsted it a giving it feed back as to a success or a fail. Which is what you say above. |> With something as simple TTT, you could program a computer TTT that |> could never lose a series if statements in a short period of |> time. :P There isn't that many combinations on a 3x3 board.... | |There was the suggestion of Connect-4. Sounds reasonable to me. Yes Connect-4 would be another easy game to start with.