Edited by rouncer, 04 May 2014 - 12:01 AM.
Jump to content
Posted 03 May 2014 - 11:59 PM
Edited by rouncer, 04 May 2014 - 12:01 AM.
Posted 04 May 2014 - 04:08 AM
a please into more of coherence
Posted 04 May 2014 - 04:15 AM
it might not work.
ok, but the idea is work. the previous logic will always be leveled up for the next speculation, always more
but petaflops is few in todays climate to necessary function.
please blog about development process so all can share in future the same
but i think no rock but let always learning conceptually further, but FORWARD
Posted 04 May 2014 - 04:39 AM
Markov model generated text?
Posted 04 May 2014 - 04:49 AM
i spose, any deranged monkey could have come up with that, back to the drawing board.
Posted 04 May 2014 - 05:06 AM
You keep sharing unusual and entirely theoretical ideas that you haven't tested (examples 1, 2 & 3), and you don't explain them very well. Did you even notice that none of the posts before mine were actually proper feedback?
People will forgive small errors if English isn't your first language, but honestly it seems like you're barely trying (basics like no capitalised letters at the start of sentences for example), and you're constantly sharing completely untested (and often very unusual) ideas and then just belligerently insisting you must be correct if people question you.
This is simply not a constructive way of posting, and with some minimal effort you could address these issues and actually have a sensible conversation people will be interested in. It's clear that you can sometimes produce potentially interesting results, and it would be really nice if you could have proper conversations with people and get some real input into your ideas so that you can potentially develop them further. It would only take some minimal effort on your part to format your posts better and to perform some rudimentary tests on your ideas rather than posting while they're still purely conceptual.
Sorry if that came across as harsh, but I think it's something you need to be told, and I sincerely hope it helps you.
My suggestions, in summary:
Edited by jbadams, 04 May 2014 - 05:14 AM.
- Jason Astle-Adams.
Posted 05 May 2014 - 12:05 AM
Jbaddams, all 3 posts are the same idea, im just slowly developing the implementation, they are non contradictory, just said at different levels of realization, maybe im wrong for telling fibs before ive prooven it works, like its no use to anyone, no matter how much i think it works.
Its just I love ai the most, if I could make my game play itself with symbolic concepts, and even generate athletic liquid motor at the same time, I could play his brain like a video game at the end and be happy with my life achievement. im sure harder things have been done.
I thought some more about it... but anyone can think about this if they want. (i have no genius complex, i feel a little foolish actually)
And, just say youve compressed analyzed a stream into packets of common repetitions, and these in a hierarchy.
just say you set up a further grouping system, which can group all up the hierarchy in a single group if it wants, and these groups connect with
inclusive and disclusive and even xor connections, which then fire if its recorded that if that logic group comes up - its definitely going to bring up a motivator or demotivator.
then you just get relations of those relations, and relations of those relations.
a cat in a hat in cat in a hat in a cat a hat, persay.
then hopefully, your robot sees another robot get run over by a car, and it triggers a demotivator, because it connected logic gate pointer to logic gate pointer, to some bad moment it experienced, thats the idea, after all the correlations between all sprites, has been discovered, then it knows if its to be done or avoided, without all the time having to fail at it first, exactly, if it develops a relation pointer instead.
and its these correlations which supervise the motor, judge it good, to be an accepted change, that means appropriate correlations came up, or judge it shit, a terrible motor example... because either no good correlations were there, or a bad correlation was there.
do you think it has potential? the robots brain is just on record.
Edited by rouncer, 05 May 2014 - 04:29 PM.
Posted 30 May 2014 - 02:39 PM
Posted 01 June 2014 - 05:47 PM
Posted 09 June 2014 - 08:07 AM
Congratulations to rouncer's creators - I think you just beat the Turing test.
Posted 09 June 2014 - 09:45 AM
They call me the Tutorial Doctor.