On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:56:00PM -0500, Richard Loosemore wrote: > Linas Vepstas wrote: > >I can easily imagine that next-years grand challenge, or the one > >thereafter, will explicitly require ability to deal with cyclists, > >motorcyclists, pedestrians, children and dogs. Exactly how they'd test > >this, however, I don't know ... > > The problem (essentially the "frame" problem) is that it is no good to > say "Oh, we had better code for the situation of avoiding pedestrians, > cyclists, children and dogs", it is that the system needs to be able to > generally model the world in such a way that it can *anticipate*, by > itself, a general situation that looks like developing into a problem.
Yes, but there is a standard solution for the frame problem that has been in use for several decades now. Its those signs posted on highway entrance ramps that state "Minimum speed 45 mph. Bicycle and pedestrian access prohibited." I hate to explain flip answers, but sigh, I guess I need to sometimes. I'm saying that the solution to the frame problem can sometimes be to not solve it. My cognition and perception abilites are not so great as to be able to avoid being hit by a meteor as I drive down the highway: in other words, my brain fails to solve that particular frame problem as well. It is also somewhat unprepared for mexican trucks with bad brakes and bald tires, and so the standard solution is to make these illegal. Human beings, when college educated, can sometimes "*anticipate* a general situation that looks like developing into a problem", but not always, and usually not at highway speeds. --linas ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=64359579-cb8713
