Re: AI -- a realistic project
Andy,
I think your method of starting this project is a good one.Using
a simple grid,we can set up any type of environment we wish, from
a pac-man maze,or tic-tac-toe board, to a virtual fishtank or cage.
Their are quite a few different opinions on what sort of environment
to provide, so to start out with, a grid would be perfect. I like the
idea so well, I've already built a grid,here is the code:
--set grid
global procedure set_grid()
for i=1 to 705 by 50 do
draw_line(2,{{1,i},{700,i}})
end for
for i=1 to 705 by 50 do
draw_line(3,{{i,1},{i,700}})
end for
end procedure
set_grid()
I built this using graphics mode 261 and I think there are 14 rows
and 14 columns giving a total of 196 grids to place obstacles,stimuli,
the creature,etc. etc.
I used graphics mode 261 because it uses the most pixels and therefore
would look the best,and we dont need any speedy graphical capabilities
right away.
However I dont know how to set up a mouse properly in this mode, so
the interface will be keyboard driven to start with.
I need help deciding what kind of interface to add with it now that
I have the basic grid.Specifically I need code to get each projects
artwork into the proper tiles.
Thanks,
JDUBE
>From: Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>Subject: AI -- a realistic project
>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:56:07 +0000
>
>
>Less talk. More action.
>
>I've had an interest and have been "doing AI" for about 10 years. I've
>got lots of opinions on the subject, surprisingly none of which have
>been represented here in recent discussions. However, I'm a bit too
>tired this morning to go on a proper rant, so that will have to wait.
>
>I propose that instead of sitting around trying to decide what do we
>need, what is best, why are we doing this, etc. we just jump in and try
>to accomplish *something*. How about we build our simulated world that
>has some agreed-upon (if we can mangage that) physical laws &
>properties, and then various people can go off and build an "entity"
>(using any method of their choosing) that will live in this environment,
>at least until the rules of the world determine that it has been killed.
> It should be very simple (in concept) which will allow us to get moving
>on this. This does not imply that complex behavior cannot emerge or at
>least it allows for the possibility for something interesting happening
>that will take us down further roads. So instead of trying to build
>Einstein's brain, we can just focus on a basic property: adaptability in
>the face of the (partially) unknown.
>
>
>There would be three phases to such a project:
>
>Phase #1:
>
>First, we collaboratively design an environment -- a world. This should
>be very simple! We are really only designing the "rules" of the world
>-- we will plop our entity into many such worlds -- all with the same
>rules, but with different configurations (so it would have to know or
>figure out the rules and be able to adapt to any configuration, and not
>just memorize one environment.) I have in mind something like a
>two-dimensional grid world that is guaranteed to be a minimum of X by X
>blocks and a maximum of Y by Y blocks (X & Y to be decided.) In
>addition, there will be several (not too many) different types of
>objects that can exist in the world -- food, obstacles, other
>(mechanical) entities, etc. The entity will be limited to certain
>simple actions like move, push object, consume object (eat a rock and
>die!), etc. The world will be updated in discrete time-steps, and we
>make up rules such as:
>
>-- an entity will die if it does not eat X often
>-- each piece of food is worth X units of energy
>-- food will grow and multiply in certain areas sometimes, other times
>it may start to dry up in one spot and spring up elsewhere (or there
>could be food *and* water, both needed)
>-- are there (mechanistic to make it simple) predators or competitors
>for food?
>-- etc.
>-- Point is the environment is not static, but not erratic or random
>either.
>-- You will be tempted to come up with lots of subtle rules (night &
>day, etc.) -- save those for next time! Baby steps...
>
>We equip our entity with certain sensors that allow it a (limited) view
>of its environment (it can't sense the whole world at once -- it must
>direct its attention and move about to discover things).
>
>Then all those rules are coded into an engine that implements the world.
> Who or how it is coded is not particularly important -- just so it
>correctly implements the agreed-upon rules, can show us what is
>happening, etc. On each time-step, the engine will provide the entity
>with the current state of its sensors, and will accept an action (or
>non-action) as input from the entity. Of course, it will also update
>any other goings-on within the world. Optionally, each time-step could
>be a *literal* amount of time on a benchmark machine -- if the entity
>doesn't provide an action within a certain time-frame, time in the world
>goes marching on anyway (memshare library, anyone?).
>
>That's phase #1 -- it is basically a game of adaptability, but one for
>which any of us won't know the best strategies beforehand (probably).
>It is also a game that has no guaranteed starting configuration -- the
>entity will simply be plopped into an existing world without knowing its
>exact size, or where the food is, or the best way around the obstacles
>and away from the predators.
>
>
>Phase #2 -- Individuals or groups of individuals each take a copy of the
>engine (or make your own so long as it adheres to the standards --
>however, there should be an "official" version) and go off and create an
>entity to live in such worlds. Each person or group can take any
>approach they want using any resources -- you want to hand-code for
>every contingency? Go ahead -- it will be a good benchmark. You want
>to use a ton of memory and try to create a complete internal map &
>record of what's happened in the world? Go ahead if you think it will
>work. Like neural networks? Use them. Don't want to hard-code
>anything and instead concentrate on coming up with a system for
>learning? Excellent. This is not a competition, only an exhibition.
>
>
>Phase #3 -- Public tests of the various entities using random or
>specifically designed but previously unknown configurations of the
>world. We note which approaches worked best, which ones worked most
>often, or for the longest time, etc. Maybe replace previously
<snip>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
