RE: The A.I. Project II
- Posted by dm31 at uow.edu.au
Nov 07, 2002
|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.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
