 | | Re: Design —dan miller
| | | | (...) Hmm, yes in a sense. Why the negativity about constrained or simulated worlds? We are not Nature; we are not constrained to work in a design space that never changes. You can mean different things by calling something a 'toy world'. I would (...) (19 years ago, 4-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Design —steve
| | | | | (...) To get to the goal of autonomous and 'sufficiently intelligent' robots, we have a lot of problems to solve. Some of these are to do with mechanics, battery technology, communications and sensors - others are to do with solving problems, path (...) (19 years ago, 4-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Design —dan miller
| | | | | (...) Agreed. ... (...) One thing that game worlds give you that is very tricky in real-world situations is, the breakdown of the environment into separable objects. Game code starts with a bunch of objects (floor, walls, tables, (...) (19 years ago, 4-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Design —steve
| | | | | (...) I firmly believe that. There is a famous 'proof' that AI is impossible - "The Chinese Room" argument by John Searle. The idea is that someone who only speaks English is imprisoned in a room. He is given long and complex instructions for (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Design —Bruce Boyes
| | | | | Quoting steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net>: (...) Are you sure? This Chinese Room arguably disproves the validity of the so-called Turing Test. The Turing Test deals only with one small aspect of AI, the question of whether a machine is judged (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | |
