• 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

quote:
Original post by fup
Timkin: The God Spoke to me last night in my dreams. It appeared before me in all Its glory. It told me you were not to be trusted... a spy from the Other Side !



I think you''ve had your head in the rinse cycle too long fup! Come up for some air!

Timkin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, one can easily see this forum heading to wackoland.

Just a reminder folks, we''re here to discuss AI, not the almighty =) BTW fup, I''m having a very hard time visualizing your trinket.

Here''s an interesting coinflip function

// function uses AI to some degree or another...
coinflip ()
{
// begin obfuscated code

#define N 624
#define M 397
int i;static unsigned long mt[N];static int mti=N+1;for(i=0;i=seed&0xffff0000;seed=69069*seed+1;mt[i]|=(seed&0xffff0000)>>16;seed=69069*seed+1;}mti=N;unsigned long y;static unsigned long mag01[2]={0x0,0x9908b0df};int kk;if(mti>=N){if(mti==N+1){};for(kk=0;kk>1)^mag01[y&0x1];}for(;kk>1)^mag01[y&0x1];}y=(mt[N-1]&0x80000000)|(mt[0]&0x7fffffff);mt[N-1]=mt[M-1]^(y>>1)^mag01[y&0x1];mti=0;}y=mt[mti++];y^=y>>11;y^=y<<7&0x9d2c5680;y^=y>>15&0xefc60000;y^=y>>18;y
// end obfuscated code
}
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heh, seems like these forums can''t take a little obfuscation!! The remaining few lines have been cut off =\

PS: AI exists, don''t h8
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please use the code tag in future and format your code. I don't want to see lines that extend beyond the screen again. It reaks havoc with some browsers and is a pain to try and read.

quote:
Original post by ghost007

// begin obfuscated code

#define N 624
#define M 397

int k;
static unsigned long mt[N];
static int mti=N+1;

for(k=0;i mt[k]=seed&0xffff0000;
seed=69069*seed+1;
mt[k]|=(seed&0xffff0000)>>16;
seed=69069*seed+1;
}

mti=N;

unsigned long y;
static unsigned long mag01[2]={0x0,0x9908b0df};
int kk;

if(mti>=N){
if(mti==N+1){};
for(kk=0;kk y=(mt[kk]&0x80000000)|(mt[kk+1]&0x7fffffff);
mt[kk]=mt[kk+M]^(y>>1)^mag01[y&0x1];
}
for(;kk y=(mt[kk]&0x80000000)|(mt[kk+1]&0x7fffffff);
mt[kk]=mt[kk+(M-N)]^(y>>1)^mag01[y&0x1];
}
y=(mt[N-1]&0x80000000)|(mt[0]&0x7fffffff);
mt[N-1]=mt[M-1]^(y>>1)^mag01[y&0x1];
mti=0;
}

y=mt[mti++];
y^=y>>11;
y^=y<<7&0x9d2c5680;
y^=y>>15&0xefc60000;
y^=y>>18;
y < N*M?return(0):return(1);


// end obfuscated code



The output is a biased coin toss...

... and what's the superfluous 'if' statement for?

Timkin

[edited by - Timkin on July 31, 2003 9:00:59 PM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is attempting to be described is not artificial intelligence, but computer sentience; at this level of competence the term ''artificial'' is no longer applicable. It is no longer a mock thinking device, but an actual being.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally I hope that AI never becomes as good as human beings. This is because I believe that if it did, coupled with the fact that computers can ''think'' faster (or parallel process)and that I watch too many Sci-Fi movies (Matrix and Terminator), I believe that oneday machines will see us as inferior and want us gone.

I know it sounds strange, but if we truely intelligent humans can control and cage animals (deemed lesser than us).. So can machines (to us) if they ever become truely intelligent and more superior.

On the other hand I sometimes wonder if they would start to ''feel'' more superior because humans have a goal, to survive, and emotions. Machines dont, Unless someone puts it there and that will not be a real goal or emotion but a purposeful program put there to wipe us all out or act like humans do and wipe each other out. I don''t believe robots would ever develop their own a goal for life and no matter how intelligent they get I still believe the will be running a BASE program that controls them but only makes them just appear intelligent or a base program that gives them emotions and a goal for life. But maybe we humans all have base programs too, such as instincts, purposefully put there by our creator (or by Science for all no religious folks...not to offend.

I don''t know much about AI, but I know a machine will never truly be intelligent and never make real decisions like humans. Everything they do will be an advanced program calculating every possible outcome towards situations they face very fast (But are we that already in biological form?). Any attempt to take over mankind would be a deliberate implementation in the AI algorithm (by the creator) to deem us as inferior but if they did...they would out think us only because:

1) They could ''think'' in multiple dimension (parellel process)
2) They would ''think'' faster
3) And maybe communicate with each other in more efficient ways as opposed to the slow human way of speech and sign langauge.

My basic point is, an intelligent machine will never be born to discover emotions, the world, people and itself just like that. Everything humans have like emotions and instinctive mechanisms would have to be HARD-CODED so the machine could take over, and to me thats a lot of programming.


What do you all think?

DarkStar
UK
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Boar_Volk9
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.



It is easy to communicate poorly and difficult to be effective in this 1-dimensional medium. If one cannot be bothered to check their spelling and grammar of what they post, why should anyone else bother to read it.

I frequently find Innocuous abrasive to a detrimental effect – he seems to lack a ''you catch more flies with honey'' attitude. But again, it''s easy to misinterpret diction in this medium.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Dark Star
I know it sounds strange, but if we truely intelligent humans can control and cage animals (deemed lesser than us).. So can machines (to us) if they ever become truely intelligent and more superior.


Hm...that got me thinking, along with something earlier in the thread about a conscience being being able to evaluate its own intelligence.

I think that if an AI could examine its code, either by looking at the choices its made, or looking at the code itself, and compare it to another intelligent being, it would definitely be close to human-level.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a program could examine it''s code, would it be able to have access to it''s ''self-examination'' code? I would think there would require a core set of instructions that you wouldn''t want the AI to have access to or it could accidentally delete itself or break itself trying to optimize or something. Something similair to ''instincts''. Of course make them virtual so it can try to overcome it''s core programming to choose it''s own course.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without really reading the thread properly this is what I think ...

[rant]
Learn to write properly. The rules of the English (or any other language) are not arbitrary. They exist to make communication easier. Most people on the internet don''t use them properly because most people are idiots and do not have anything interesting to communicate. Crap English is not a new language. Idiots have been getting English wrong for millennia. They are known as "the illiterate". This is okay in #teen or when you "txt ur m8s" but there are intelligent people here and they don''t generally expect to have to waste valuable time deciphering this cryptic drivel.
[/rant]

As has been alluded to previously there seems to be some confusion in this thread between artificial intelligence and artificial life. They are not the same. AI must be told what to do. AL learns on it''s own. We have created, studied and are beginning to get quite good at AI. We have only just begun to take our first steps into AL, and we will succeed at this, probably within our lifetimes. AL is not as hard to create as many people imagine; the science is in it''s infancy but the basic concept is that we don''t have to create intelligence we simply have to provide a complex enough virtual environment to allow intelligence to evolve . This requires a lot of processing power but processing power keeps getting cheaper. Many of the basic components of the software already exist as physical simulations of a complex environment are commonplace.

If you want to learn more appropriate search terms might be "machine learning" or "artificial life".

Finally, I wouldn''t worry about machines usurping humans. As soon as a machine mind is equivalent to a human one people will start uploading their minds into computers and robots (I would). We will be the machines (some of us, anyway) and we won''t suddenly lose all empathy with humanity, we''ll just think quicker and have bigger memories. We probably wouldn''t even have to look any different as computers will be partly bio-tech by then anyway. Eventually, I would expect multiple human mind copies to be integrated with machine intelligence to create hybrid minds - these would likely be the most effective as they can keep the best aspects of multiple people and the machine mind, but they would still probably retain human empathy. As the most effective type of mind, subsequent AL would be derived from these and probably retain these traits. Besides, any truly intelligent being would realise that it does not exist alone but within an ecosystem and in a state of interdependance with it''s environment. To destroy humans and create a machine hegenomy would ultimately not be self-serving. Artificial stupidity, if you like, and if we created that then it would be our own fault, wouldn''t it?

Geocyte Has Committed Suicide.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked nicely the first time. I HATE repeating myself and I will not repeat myself again in this thread.

This is NOT the forum to discuss (in)appropriate grammar and writing style, nor is it the forum to espouse your personal opinion about other peoples writing style.

If you wish to discuss such a topic, do so in the appropriate forum (The Lounge).

Timkin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geocyte: the differences between artificial intelligence and artificial life are not that AI must be told what to do and AL learns what to do on its own. It's also not true that AL has only been around a short time or that it's in its infancy or even that AI or AL don't share any mechanisms.
Aritficial Life was first (majorly) kicked off by the cyberneticists in the 1950s, not exactly a high tech computer era. Look up people like W Grey Walter and his Machina Speculatrix. AI, as a field in computing, has only been around as long as Turing and Von Neumann (the second of which played around with cellular automata, whilst helping invent modern computing). Previously to that, most attempts at AI were behaviour based, which is the definition of ALife, trying to create mechanical devices that immitated man (which happened hundreds if not thousands of years previously).

So ALife is behaviour based AI, as "AI" is knowledge based or rules based or symbolic AI. One deals with behaviour as its internal currency, the other with (operations over) symbols. The first is (supposedly, but often not) steeped in embodiment and situatedness, the second steeped in operators over symbols and general abstraction from the world. AI systems can have reinforcement learning and an AL system can be hand coded (imagine a neural network that was hand weighted, that doesn't stop it being AL in itself).

I would also say that neural networks can be AI or ALife, depending on your approach to them. Using Backpropagation to teach a set of abstract concepts to a neural network, with no interface between the network to any world (real or simulated) merely replaces symbols with numeric values. If this is not AI then it is so close to the line to make no difference (though I'm sure many would argue the point).


I hope you don't mind me preaching a little,

Mike

[edited by - MikeD on August 1, 2003 6:31:33 AM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey guys

lookey here we all have our opinions about proper english. the fact is i was tired at the time and so could not be bothered to write doube th amount of words.

also writing like that comes naturally to me on the internet because it is so much easier.

by the way if you do have a problem then go away. nearly everyone here can understand it easily because all it takes is a tiny bit of intelligence or a little bit of time on the net.

generally most of the population on gamedev would be computer nerds so MAJORITY RULES ok. you are a minority therefore you dont count
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bleedin'' ''eck, I post a debateable discourse on the differences between AI and AL and the next two posts don''t point out errors or clarify points, they talk about language (1337 5p34k suXx0r btw) and Timkin''s Hulk like properties.

What is this forum coming to.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by MikeD
I hope you don''t mind me preaching a little,



Not at all. I appreciate the clarification, but I think the fact remains that AI is a more advanced science than AL, possibly because the type of computers we commonly use (semi-conductor based) are good at procedural logic.

quote:
Original post by Timkin
This is NOT the forum to discuss (in)appropriate grammar...



Well, perhaps not. I went over the top, for which I am sorry, but I couldn''t sit by and let someone claim that using English badly is a "new language". I don''t mind when a child or a non-native English speaker writes badly but I don''t think there is much of an excuse for laziness.

Nevertheless, you are correct. It''s not a writing forum. In future I may still say something but I won''t be such an arsehole about it. Is this an acceptable compromise?

Sorry cheeseman. It''s not really such a capital crime to be a lazy writer. I don''t like it but I didn''t need to bite your head off.

Geocyte Has Committed Suicide.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Bleedin' 'eck, I post a debateable discourse on the differences between AI and AL and the next two posts don't point out errors or clarify points, they talk about language (1337 5p34k suXx0r btw) and Timkin's Hulk like properties."

Pull yourself together man! Get your priorities right!


Edit: added smiley so that non Brits can understand I'm joking.

Damn, had to add another one!





[edited by - fup on August 1, 2003 2:45:16 PM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren''t Artificial Intelligence and A-Life quite closely linked?
A prime example is the human brain, a coupling of intelligence and life. Our genetics control our instinctual behaviour and since these change with each generation, then our minds will change also...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that the reason so many people are upset at the original posting is that they realize the limitations of what they are doing (i.e. they have not yet created a true mind, but only complex algorithms. Don''t get me wrong these are also truly wonderful inventions.)

Also to those who wish to believe that they are no more than complicated machines, influenced by genetics and environment, consider this quote:
"The eye is not seeing, as the ear is not hearing."
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that the reason so many people are upset at the original posting is that they realize the limitations of what they are doing (i.e. they have not yet created a true mind, but only complex algorithms. Don''t get me wrong these are also truly wonderful inventions.)

Also to those who wish to believe that they are no more than complicated machines, influenced by genetics and environment, consider this quote:
"The eye is not seeing, as the ear is not hearing."
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone feels the need to test my patience again they''ll find their account on probation. I moderate for a reason, not because I like to see my name on the forums.

This thread is now closed. If you''re not sure why, refer to my previous post.

Timkin
0

Share this post


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