|
The computer doesn't do "missions"; the user may get a mission and the computer tries to stop the user; or it's user on user.
It comes down to just a few basics: moving; standing (holding, defending, delaying); firing; and hand-to-hand. Offensive, defensive; defensive-offensive.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest, what you have just described sounds like a fairly simple workflow system. Yes, the states you are describing may be quite complex, but you're effectively describing a series of workflows. This doesn't mean you need a workflow engine or anything like that, it's entirely possible to program this with events and states.
|
|
|
|
|
>sounds like a fairly simple workflow system
That’s something I have yet to learn
> Gerry Schmitz : the computer does’t do “missions”
Maybe I can come with an AI that does that
Of course my main goal is to write a common type RTS first.
|
|
|
|
|
The closest to a (computer) "mission", is following waypoints to a particular destination (i.e. another point) ... which can be the location of an anticipated action.
Along the way, they may be: fired on; surprised; encounter an obstacle; charged by "mobile" units; etc.
What happens next depends on what "tactics" and probability calculations you've incorporated based on numerical superiority, type of ground, condition, past encounters: retreat; stand ground; counter attack; "panic"; etc.
At the end of an encounter, the chances that the party simply recommences their route march to somewhere, depends entirely on the "commander" (i.e. a "user").
(Actually, the "commander" from the computer's perspective is a roll of the dice when there are multiple options with varying probabilities: rolling a number less than, equal or greater than the associated probability. Win, lose, or maybe a draw. The "friction of war" ...).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Calin Negru wrote: What are your thoughts?
INIGO: You are using Bonetti’s defense against me, huh?
WESTLEY: I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain.
INIGO: Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro.
WESTLEY: Naturally. But I find that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro, don’t you?
INIGO: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa. Which I have!
modified 6-Jun-23 12:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Calin Negru wrote: What are your thoughts?
First of course is a whole bunch of Deja Vu because seems like I remember seeing this same post a while ago.
Second, also of course, is that this is a fundamental problem for any game where there is a computer opponent. That is where humans start complaining about the AI (traditional game) being 'stupid' or citing a specific example where it seemed like it was human like. Also where game creators allow the AI to cheat with the idea of providing a better (harder) opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
> First of course is a whole bunch of Deja Vu
You must have been traveling into the future
>Gerry Schmitz:
I think going around the problem enemy group is the first thing that should be tried when you have “something in the way “situations
|
|
|
|
|
The reports of totally made up answers that are so confident and well-written have me thinking. These AI seem to have no concept of the difference between fact and fiction. Being asked to produce copy is the same thing to them as being asked for factual content. They regularly plagiarize, so taking bits from the questions and bits from other writings, they assemble responses as if they were just copy, even when asked to answer with simple facts, whole snips of historical documents/scientific studies, or calculations.
Perhaps what is needed is a sort-of 'scholar:' tag. So when asking for answers, it won't make things up.
|
|
|
|
|
Common sense and baseline IQ will tell anyone that AI and AI "Chat" is still very new and is in constant development and progression.
Eventually, some day (soon?) it will be perfected.
To judge it now is premature at best.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like something an AI would say!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is new. And it will change (significantly?) over time.
The problem, though, is an old one: people are lazy. Given a new tool to help them do a job, they'll quickly use it to do the job, without oversight or a critical eye.
So what difference does it make if you're getting misinformation from an automated device, or a politician, a newscaster, or your neighbor Paul. If you don't take time to verify, then what does it matter.
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events.
- Manly P. Hall
Mark
Just another cog in the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
They started AI research in the 50s.
Lisp is a programming language created about 1960 specifically for doing research in AI.
ChatGPT comes from OpenAI which was started in 2015 as a non-profit specifically to use existing (prior) knowledge of AI to research it.
ChatGPT is actually the third generation of something based on what they were working on.
So not really sure how any of this counts as "very new".
|
|
|
|
|
I'll do like I did with digital cameras, I'll wait till things get 'good enough' before I invest my time with the bots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Al Fargnoli wrote: strings phrases together partially based on the frequency of those phrases
Which describes many click bait sites also. So are they intelligent?
|
|
|
|
|
Almost as "intelligent" as a LLM-based chat bot!
|
|
|
|
|
Cpichols wrote: These AI seem to have no concept of the difference between fact and fiction.
The key word in the name is "Artificial". Anyone with half a brain knows that these machines have nothing anywhere close to intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you pass the bar exam?
|
|
|
|
|
Myself I haven't tried.
But in quite a few place in the US one does not need to be a lawyer to be a judge.
One does not need to go to law school to take the bar exam.
There are practicing lawyers that have not passed the bar exam.
A lawyer was sanctioned because they submitted case law extracted from ChatGPT which was entirely made up.
Myself I can drive a car in the snow and maneuver around construction cones without running into the side of truck. Hopefully you can do the same. Hopefully you do not rely on your self driving car to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Can lawyers write specifications? designs? computer programs?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Cpichols wrote: These AI seem to have no concept of the difference between fact and fiction.
Why would they? They get fed the internet: GIGO applies!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
AI is just a learning algorithm. It predicts behavior based on previously known inputs and learns to predict the correct output based on these. The problem is that it needs a massive amount of data to be able to do this.
What I would love to see is an AI that could read the documentation and be able to just answer your questions from this documentation. Or better, you just type what you want to do in a console in the respective program, and the AI finds out what you want it to do and does it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more generally. If you have say a GIS program you could just type: I want to create a plot of the current view, and it just does it.
The AI you suggested seems to be a coder and code reviewer?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
