RE: The A.I. Project II
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.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
