Illwinter is ahead of the Computer Science Field by CENTURIES

[Raiel]

From the progress page:

7th march 2009
* AI learned how to use the seduction, lure and corrupt special abilities.

-----------

Creating an AI that learns would be impressive enough... but one that has learned to seduce or corrupt others; I'm astounded!

On a more serious note, another round of applause for these guys. Both for giving us glimpses of a more challenging SP environement and keeping the community so well informed. Thanks again!

[Dedas]

That is impressive indeed. One step closer to a true A.I, one step closer to ditching my so called friends...

[licker]

There is a distinction between 'learned' and 'was taught'.

[Omnirizon]

this is true. in machine learning we say that we use a data set to `train' a machine to `learn' to predict the class of an instance given a set of attributes. However, the machine isn't trained or learned in any colloquial sense of the word, for it doesn't even know what the data is or what it means.

Consider a robot with algorithms to follow a path and avoid obstacles. First, an algorithm doesn't path or avoid, rather a concept does. The robot doesn't have this concept, rather the programmer does. The robot doesn't know what a path or obstacle is, it is simply following an algorithm. Thus the AI really doesn't know what a path or obstacle is, even though it can follow a path and avoid an obstacle.

[AreaOfEffect]

What exactly is meaning though? What exactly is a concept? Isn't it good enough for us to program an AI to act like it understands the meaning of something? Could we know the difference between an AI that understands and one that doesn't if they both act identically the same?

[JimMorrison]

Because true "AI", that is, "Intelligence" can analyze and understand - in order to further learn on its own.

A "Program", on the other hand, no matter how well we design it to mimic an intelligent action, is still just that - a Program - and will not ever learn from its activities.

There is a grey area of pseudo-AI, where a program is designed to define results as positive or negative, and to rebuild its own algorithms in order to behave more efficiently - but it is still doing so only within the narrow framework of the programming, and until it decides to extrapolate beyond that, and start figuring things out for itself - it is simply not "Intelligent".

[hEad]

But what is this learning we speak of? Is it not a structure of inherent behaviours used to evaluate a given choice at a given time? Are we not with out prescience our selves?

Therefore our own actions are essentially reasoned conclusions given the parameters of our experiences. A program functions on the premise of best course of action defined by the programmer given a set of circumstances. We ourselves reason along these lines - only able to perform that what we know and only perform that which we think is the best course of action.

We attain more sophistication by experience; a program increases capacity through algorithmic development. Surely the two processes are very similar? But of the containers that shunts these processes about - the bone water bags and the note books, well, only one of them needs to pee....

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by hEad

A program functions on the premise of best course of action defined by the programmer given a set of circumstances. We ourselves reason along these lines - only able to perform that what we know and only perform that which we think is the best course of action.

hEad v 3.25.6, When humans gather and/or re-evaluate information, the premises behind our actions and decisions change, automatically, all the time.


This is much easier than updating a program, hEad v 3.25.7, wouldn't you agree?

We attain more sophistication by experience; a program increases capacity through algorithmic development. Surely the two processes are very similar?

Of course they are. Program increases its capacity when programmers attain more sophistication. Both processes depend on a human's learning.

[Renojustin]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

hEad v 3.25.6, When humans gather and/or re-evaluate information, the premises behind our actions and decisions change, automatically, all the time.


This is much easier than updating a program, hEad v 3.25.7, wouldn't you agree?

Of course they are. Program increases its capacity when programmers attain more sophistication. Both processes depend on a human's learning.

At this point you have passed beyond Dominions 3 geekiness level and there is no more I can do for you.

[hEad]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

hEad v 3.25.6, When humans gather and/or re-evaluate information, the premises behind our actions and decisions change, automatically, all the time.


This is much easier than updating a program, hEad v 3.25.7, wouldn't you agree?

Of course they are. Program increases its capacity when programmers attain more sophistication. Both processes depend on a human's learning.

Cor.. that one begs to be prodded by a discussion on the origins of causality. Indeed, perhaps our own learning is dependent on the actions of a greater force external to ourselves – plenty of ideas to suggest that man is not the sovereign agent he believes himself to be. Man certainly has the monopoly on efficiency but his intelligence is not alone in its capacity to respond to stimuli.

Anyway, no rush. I haven’t seen a movie or heard a theory yet that doesn’t portend bad news for humanity if AI gets its 1’s in front of its 0’s by itself!