Douglas replied to me: > > * Random solutions are much harder to test and verify, and vehicle > > control programs have much higher quality standards than games > > or even accounting programs. 'That was a crit failure, one in a > > million' is no good answer when a mechanically sound airliner > > plows into the ground > > Not true, if the random solutions are out of a set of know good > possibles. This is the difference between a Soft and a Hard Monti > Carlo. By the way, the new go programs to not make bad moves anymore, > they just don't always make the best move.
Makes sense for combat, not necessarily for civilian applications: if you can tell that a solution is 'good enough', why look further? > > * Monte Carlo analysis cannot cover all possible actions by the > > robot, only those which are rewarded by the scoring algorithm. > > You have the same limit in a human. If the scoring algorithm is > complex enough to include all the situations then it could. I would > think that any AI that was human equivalent would have to have a > simulation of reality within it just as humans do and that this would > be used to make these evaluations, just as we do. This is of course a > limit to any intelligence. For example you might meet the perfect > partner for you but if they don't fit your idea of perfect (or good > enough) you will not take any action. All life has evolved to score > the outcomes of it's actions and pick what seems to be the best one. > In primitive life forms this evaluation is the result of evolution and > the actions taken are instinct and in higher forms we have better > scoring systems and more flexible options. Computer programs have to be programmed beforehand (and if they can rewrite themselves, the rules for that must be written). Humans are more fuzzy. > > A human bomber pilot might decide to activate the navigation > > lights and set the transponder to a civilian frequency. The > > stochastic algorithm would conclude that lights won't jam a > > missile and reject this course of action. > > I have no idea how you come to believe this to be so. If the pilot can > think of ways to outsmart the enemy why do you think that the > programmers or even the AI would not? It is all a question of AI IQ or > programmed limits and really the humans IQ and ethics (programming). A > human might also just stay with his training, if he is dumb, > inflexible or tired. It comes down to the question if I believe in artificial intelligence or not. Right now I tend to believe in very good simulations of intelligence, not the real thing ... _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
