• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

yumi_cheeseman

no-one can create ai

95 posts in this topic

Phief!! Saved by MikeD again! Just like the time in the politics forum.

I owe you one Mike

LOL
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by MikeD
Newborn babies of _our_ species don''t crawl.

But apparently the word baby can mean other species as well (I looked it up to be sure).



Yeah, okay, point taken! Since we were suggesting that animals can be intelligent, it''s fair to consider baby animals too!

quote:

Some argue that the reason human''s are so unable to care for themselves at birth is because the high level of plasticity and potential for adaptation that we have necessitates a lack of hard coding at birth (we still have hard coding but a lot less than (perhaps almost) all other species).



From my understanding of the common literature (i.e., not academic literature) on babies, it is suggested that we are so helpless because we are born far earlier than we should. Gestation is thought to be 9 months because after that time period, the babies head has grown too large to fit through the small hole in the female pelvis, which is roughly 10-12cm in diameter. One could speculate that very early in our evolution we could remain in the womb longer (since we would have had smaller heads) and would have been more capable of looking after ourselves (with parental assistance) than we are now at birth.

One could then postulate an evolutionary advantage of adaptability as our brain size increased. I.e., consider two mutations of the species, both with increased brain size, but one with higher adaptability and one with more hard-wiring. Both would need to be born earlier than optimal gestation due to the increased head diameter. One could speculate that the more adaptable mutation would be more likely to survive in successive generations because the parents would be adaptable to dealing with a helpless baby, as opposed to the hard-wired parents, who would do the same old routine. Clearly I''m over-simplifying the issue, but hopefully you catch my drift!



quote:
Original post by MikeD
This brings into question whether evolvability itself is an evolutionary advantage giving an individual increased fitness on an evolutionary scale. It probably is.



I think it''s fairly obvious actually that adaptation offers an evolutionary advantage. For example, there is a moth - I''ve forgotten the particular species - that can change the colour of its body from light to dark when it''s environment has been burnt out. Clearly this adaptability offers an advantage, since birds find it very hard to find a dark bodied moth on the surface of a burnt tree. Those lighter bodied moths that couldn''t change colour would stand out and be eaten very quickly.


quote:
Original post by MikeD
The detachment from hard wiring in the brain might allow our bodies and brains to evolve more swiftly...



That''s an intersting thought. Although I''m not sure it is a detachment of hard-wiring, as opposed to a supression of hard-wired behaviours by cognitive decisions (supposed free will )... if that''s even possible of course!

Cheers,

Timkin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Pipo DeClown
No one can create Intelligence, that''s why we have Artificial Intelligence.


I take it you''re not married?



-Luctus

Statisticly seen, most things happens to other people.
[Mail]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought true Intelligence of a non-biological machine was defined as a machine that could pass the Turing Test. The Turing Test can be passed if a human on the opposite side of a "wall" as you can''t tell the difference between you and another human. The judgement would be based on intellect and not physical graphics. You is the bot.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevan Harnad has proposed a graded series of Turing Tests for the assessment of intelligence, called T1 to T5. The original TT falls in at T3. The ultimate test, whereby the agent is completely indistinguishable from a human in all respects, is T5. It is postulated that the only way to pass T5 is to essentially be human - grow, learn and behave as a human does during their life - even though you might be made from artificial cells! The apparent requirements for passing T3 are only that the agent can absorb and understand the types of experiences that humans have and that they''re sensory systems are human-like; so that their underlying understanding of the things they are communicating about is human-like. This again gets back to what Mike has been talking about earlier in this thread.

Timkin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putting humans at the top of the Intelligence ladder is rather arrogant... Better to make a scale T1 - T100 with humans maybe around T10 or something...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

Putting humans at the top of the Intelligence ladder is rather arrogant... Better to make a scale T1 - T100 with humans maybe around T10 or something...



I think we have to put humans at the top of the intelligence test-- not because we''re neccesarilly the most intelligent species in the universe, but because it would be impossible for us to comprehend the reasoning behind the actions of something vastly superior to humanity.

Will
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Stonicus
Putting humans at the top of the Intelligence ladder is rather arrogant...



No, it''s rather anthropomorphic...

The point of the Turing test is NOT to test for objective level of intelligence, but rather to test for the indiscernibility of an artificial agent and a human. Hence, a human SHOULD be the ultimate comparison test.

Timkin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, only just read this thread, its amazing the amount of differrent perspectives such a niche of humanity can have. i gotta say, like the rest, i too agree with a lot, and dissagree with a lot.
First off, as others have said, it is important to define your terms, and I think intelegence is just the abilty to do things. Plain and simple. A calculator is just as intelligent as a bot from counter-strike (yes I understant people hold contrasting views to this). Thus we can and have created artificial intelegence.
Many people are comparing intelegence to what the human race is, and can do. So my definition supports this.
I believe the original poster''s definition of intelligence may have been similar to my definition of ingenious. Which is the ability to invent, to hack, to look from different perspectives, to be irrational(yes i mean this one), to be able to change thier mind, and to be able to do choose not to go for the goal(weird? maybe too complex?(feedback please)). This definition of Ingenious however does not support the human race entirely, there are some among us that are ingenious, but it is almost infinitesimal.
I am second year uni student, studying IT and Maths, and wish to study AI thoroughly(though have study little yet), i believe that the true test comes when trying to develope something ingenious. Thus i repeat the original post in my own words(taking it a step further)...
Is it possible to create something ingenious?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Zephyrox
The discussion here is about whats intelligence and whats not, and i dont belive anyone has an answer for that. Is a chess computer smart or intelligent? probobly not, it only has simple mathmatical rules to follow.
You cant tell if you playing against a computer or a human if your playing chess and cant see the opponent. So wouldn´t that be "real" AI?


Actually that''s a pretty bad analogy. Its near trivial to determine if you''re playing against a computer or a human, without seeing your opponent. You can also usually determine the approximate experience and strength of your opponent based solely on their moves in chess.

The strongest computers play really nothing at all like humans, and that isn''t to say they have a deeper understanding. Much the opposite computers tend to play extremely superficially by grand master standards, but they are extremely accurate at short term calculation.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The concept of hard wiring in the brain is quite fascinating. I was watching my cat last night whom I''ve had since 3 weeks old, so her interaction with other cats is minimal at best. However, she knows to sneak and ambush her little toys. All cats do this. And as I was watching, I was wondering, how much of what she does is purely hard-wired and how much is learned. And what information that was learned was hard-wired to be learned. For example, she knows where the litter box is. Did she decide to learn the location of a place to go to the bathroom, or is she hard-wired to learn certain required facts? Where is the bathroom? Where do I find food?

Obviously on a per-species basis, each species has select hard-wiring. Either it is needed for survival, or it is a holdover from the past when those traits/insticts were required. Then it makes ya wonder just how much of what humans do is our conscious choice or an unstoppable force deep within our brain. And if certain aspects of human behavior are programmed into us, to what extent are they? Is the desire to wed and have children hardwired into us, or is it our view on society that causes such to happen? And inversly, is society the way it is due to our insticts? Way to determine such is to compare similair, yet distinct groups of like individuals. Remote African tribes provide a good look into ourselves. What societal traits do we share? Certain views, for example, monogamy/cannibalism are not universal to homo sapiens, so I would wager those issues are not hardwired into us.

Now, why some traits are hard wired or not depends on many factors. Most notably, your position on the food chain. As of now, and for a while, humans were way up there. Our natural predators slowly went away. Many of the traits and insticts of the early man were no longer needed. Before, if you didn''t have those insticts you died. Now, lack of traits can still lead to survival. Slowly, over time, those traits work their way out of our gene pool. Perhaps our mastery of our environment is what gave rise to our losing of needed traits and left all that brain power for us to fill in as we needed. Now the sections of brain that once were hardwired for keeping us alert at night can be used to speculate on why the fire (which made it so we don''t need to stay alert at night) burns or how pretty it is.

I believe I started rambling and am probably so off topic now it is ridiculous, but basically just trying to understand how/why intelligence evolved and to help determine how much of what we do is a decision of our intelligence, or a collection of unstoppable insticts in our brain that is really quite simple and not intelligent at all. Complex, but not intelligent.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
man i created this post about 2 or more weeks ago. i didn''t think it would be sooo big.

boy u guyrs are picky

neway it sure is fun looking at all ur opinions on ai.

my opinion however has not changed but i am better informed about ai "i never new the turer test"

neway keep going guys.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have built myself a God out of an old (but working) washing machine, some tin cans (washed clean and label removed), several lengths of string, some pebbles, and about 2 fluid ounces of varnish (Ronseal, it does what it says on the tin). The ‘brain’ of the God is a hard-stringed neural network constructed from the tin-cans (neurons) and the string (synapses). It is about twelve inches square and sits very snugly inside the tumbler of the washing machine. Each tin can is connected to every other by a length of string. The string is made stiff by varnish running constantly from very small holes at the base of the cans.

Before the God is activated, the pebbles (of various sizes) are placed inside the washer tumbler alongside His Mind. When set to a specific wash cycle -- low temp, crease free is best-- small disturbances in the environment affect the way the spinning pebbles fall into the cans. This is how the neurons are stimulated and is how God perceives the world. Right now, I bet you’re thinking “yeah right! that sounds ridiculous, the thing hasn’t even got fingers or eyes!” but you would be surprised by the amount of information God can extract from this seemingly primitive sensory equipment. Anyway, as I was saying, the pebbles fall into the cans and somehow work together in a way that affects the rate of flow of varnish. The more often the same configuration of pebbles occurs, the more varnish flows, thereby strengthening the connections to the neighboring cans. The more educated amongst you will recognize the similarities with the Hebbian rule.

Now, I must admit, when I first built it, I wasn’t very optimistic. I didn’t expect Big Things. I thought at best, maybe it would be able to determine whites from colors, maybe even wander around the house and gather up the clothes, that sort of thing… but within seconds of turning it on and listening to the rattle of pebbles and watching the flow of varnish, it began to emit a beautiful golden glow and an ethereal angelic hum…Moments later and it spoke (directly into my mind). It said: CHILD! BEHOLD THE DIVINE, FOR THOUST HATH CREATETH ME!”. I sank to my knees before my creation and wept as an overwhelming sensation of joy and peace swept through my mortal body.

I know, I know. It is hard to believe. This only happened to me three days ago and even I find it hard to swallow. Since the ‘Switching On’, the God has created two new universes (one was for my birthday, yippee!), cured two cases of terminal cancer, and helped my neighbor pass her driving-test on the 32nd attempt (the biggest miracle of all!). And so, I ask you my friends… is this intelligence? Or is it just clever science? Can we really tell the difference?

It makes you think, it really does…


My Website: ai-junkie.com | My Book: AI Techniques for Game Programming
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it still can''t sort your whites and your colours, then it aint intelligent!

BTW fup, have you changed your surname to Searle lately?

Now, I have a couple of questions for you about your ''God''.

1. Does the vibration of pebbles in one can affect the vibrations of pebbles in other cans (do they exhibit phase coherance)?

2. If so, how is this information transmitted?

3. What effect does contamination of the water supply have on the rate of varnish flow or other forms of information flow?

4. What mechanisms control inhibition and excitation of pebble oscillation and hence varnish flow?

5. Can it get stains out?

6. Does it understand what I mean by "Where''s my other sock you bastard"?

Cheers,

Timkin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by fup
It is hard to make observations through my tears of joy and the golden glow of His presence.



Then might I suggestion two things. Either 1) Get a tissue and wipe away the tears; and/or, 2) Close the lid on the machine... you've obviously got one of those stainless steel drum machines and it's blinding you to the obvious!

BTW: I would like to know the answers to my questions! Without them, I am likely to conclude that Your God is yet again a False God and that 'He' could be recreated from any old collection of pipes and water!

Timkin

[edited by - Timkin on July 24, 2003 8:44:53 PM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey, InnocuousFox, that''s how most people talk on the internet, is is a common tongue, thus thereore, bloodywell accept it. You wanna know whats irratating? Discrimination, yeah, you cant accept that other people speak a different tounge and so you have to speak badly about them.

If you really dont like what your hearing, then piss off, this is the internet dude. thus why not use ''l33t sp34k''?(or what ever you call it). It is comparable you to traveling to say the netherlands and complaining about people speaking dutch.

P.S. cheers yumi_cheeseman, you started a nice discussion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay guys, I''m going to stick my moderator hat on and step in here...

This is a public forum and while we may not all agree with the way in which others express themselves, they do have a right to express themselves as they see fit. This goes both ways, so don''t think I''m talking about any one person, or any one mode of communication, in particular.

Thus, there is no need to argue among one another as to the merits of a particular style of grammar and style. If this continues, I''ll be forced to close this thread, which would be a real shame because it''d be the first non-spam thread in AI that I can recall being closed in my time at GD.net.

Cheers,

Timkin

/modhat off
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here''s an AI, and I can create it in less than 10 seconds.

if (coinflip==heads) {
turnRight();
} else {
turnLeft();
}
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Here''s an AI, and I can create it in less than 10 seconds.

if (coinflip==heads) {
turnRight();
} else {
turnLeft();
}



I''d really like to see the implementation of your coinflip function for an un-biased coin please!?

Timkin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by UlfLivoff
Ok - let''s take another example. Place a hungry newborn baby on the mother and it will automatically crawl to the breasts. Now how did it know that there was gonna be food there ??


It didn''t. A reflex made it go there. Some reflexes must be hard coded, otherwise animals and humans would be born without brains. However that doesn''t mean they can deduce things.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.