2011-07-17T00:00:42 *** jbrechtel has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T00:32:38 *** eashoka has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T00:56:23 *** rabidus has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T01:16:42 *** jbrechtel has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 2011-07-17T01:51:51 *** amriedle has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T01:55:05 *** eashoka has quit IRC (Quit: Page closed) 2011-07-17T02:23:44 *** nullkuhl has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T02:40:08 *** amriedle has quit IRC (Quit: Lost terminal) 2011-07-17T04:06:23 *** Palmik has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T04:12:16 *** pvarga_ has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T04:15:21 *** pvarga has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 2011-07-17T04:15:21 *** pvarga_ is now known as pvarga 2011-07-17T04:32:02 *** foRei has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2011-07-17T04:42:04 *** mleise has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T04:42:25 *** mcstar has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T05:59:35 *** amstan has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 2011-07-17T06:25:06 *** filter_ has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T06:28:22 *** filter has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) 2011-07-17T06:58:13 *** FireFly has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T07:03:10 janzert: hi, do you know by any chance, exactly what i need to do to completely disable time-checks when i run the games locally? 2011-07-17T07:03:58 i guess i need to fiddle with engine.py, but id welcome some input 2011-07-17T07:04:42 *** pvarga has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 2011-07-17T07:19:29 mcstar: I suppose you could set --turntime and --loadtime to really high values? 2011-07-17T07:20:02 i hoped for a more elegant solution 2011-07-17T07:20:08 patch the engine so that it doesn't check time if they are set to 0 :P 2011-07-17T07:20:31 the thing is, that im using lisp, and you know, you can debug a running lisp instance, and this is what id like too 2011-07-17T07:20:49 but i cant debug if the engine kills the bot, which entered into debugging mode 2011-07-17T07:21:13 and id like to leave my bot in debugging mode as long as id like 2011-07-17T07:21:26 im looking into sanbox.py right now 2011-07-17T07:21:33 line 331 in worker/engine.py if you want to change the source 2011-07-17T07:23:00 so the engine loops get_moves all the time, while it gasnt hit the timelimit 2011-07-17T07:23:07 hasnt 2011-07-17T07:23:11 yup 2011-07-17T07:23:27 im wondering if this would solve the problem 2011-07-17T07:23:34 i mean, there can be other time checks too 2011-07-17T07:23:42 there aren't 2011-07-17T07:23:48 ah ok :) 2011-07-17T07:23:57 i believe you 2011-07-17T07:24:04 thx then 2011-07-17T07:25:09 sigh: so if i have a question regarding the engine, and mcleo isnt here, shall i ask directly you? 2011-07-17T07:25:55 sure, ask me, but I haven't worked on the engine since about april so my knowledge might be out of date 2011-07-17T07:28:15 git blame still blames me for that line I pointed you at so I feel fairly safe telling you that it will fix your problem :P 2011-07-17T07:28:33 now, i only have to use netcat to glue the running emacs lisp instance to playgame.py :S 2011-07-17T07:28:48 sigh: i dont know what you mean sorry 2011-07-17T07:28:55 git blame? what is that? 2011-07-17T07:29:43 git blame is a command which tells you who made the last change to each line in a file 2011-07-17T07:30:12 ah 2011-07-17T07:30:19 clear now :) 2011-07-17T07:30:26 :) 2011-07-17T07:31:45 nice, cat holds the engine from advancing 2011-07-17T08:03:11 *** jbrechtel has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T08:36:23 *** jbrechtel has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) 2011-07-17T08:47:03 *** jbrechtel has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T08:54:56 *** jbrechtel has quit IRC (Read error: Operation timed out) 2011-07-17T08:57:40 *** mleise has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2011-07-17T09:12:22 *** fbparis has left #aichallenge 2011-07-17T09:19:33 *** jmreardon has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T09:23:08 *** FireFly has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2011-07-17T09:25:17 *** FireFly has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T09:44:15 morning 2011-07-17T09:45:43 not morning for another 20 min 2011-07-17T09:45:48 :P 2011-07-17T09:55:03 *** mcstar has left #aichallenge ("WeeChat 0.3.5") 2011-07-17T09:58:52 *** onensora has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T10:13:06 *** fbparis has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T10:29:08 *** mleise has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T10:32:39 its morning here! 2011-07-17T10:32:48 no sighbot this time around? 2011-07-17T10:33:08 it's morning here too now :) 2011-07-17T10:34:26 heh here being? 2011-07-17T10:34:41 aren't you in the same place as me now? 2011-07-17T10:34:41 sydney 2011-07-17T10:34:44 ah 2011-07-17T10:34:44 nm 2011-07-17T10:34:48 *** fbparis has left #aichallenge 2011-07-17T10:34:49 where are you? 2011-07-17T10:34:53 you back in australia 2011-07-17T10:35:00 weren't you visiting mountain view? 2011-07-17T10:35:03 a few days back 2011-07-17T10:35:17 I was there in the second half of june 2011-07-17T10:35:19 i am like 10 miles from there 2011-07-17T10:35:23 ahhh 2011-07-17T10:35:33 in north san jose border of santa clara/san jose 2011-07-17T10:36:18 i see 2011-07-17T10:37:17 morning :) 2011-07-17T10:38:56 *** AlliedEnvy_ has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T10:40:54 *** mcstar has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T10:41:20 *** AlliedEnvy has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) 2011-07-17T10:41:33 morning 2011-07-17T10:42:41 bhasker: did you leave an automated greeting script running? 2011-07-17T10:42:54 :) 2011-07-17T10:43:08 maybe i should write an irc bot to do that 2011-07-17T10:43:43 you could probably configure contestbot to do something interesting 2011-07-17T10:44:15 @contestbot 2011-07-17T10:44:16 bhasker: User error -- Replace user. 2011-07-17T10:44:23 @contestbot help 2011-07-17T10:44:29 @help 2011-07-17T10:44:29 bhasker: (help [] []) -- This command gives a useful description of what does. is only necessary if the command is in more than one plugin. 2011-07-17T10:44:39 @commands 2011-07-17T10:44:39 sigh: action, add, alert, alias, announce, announce add, announce list, announce remove, any, aol, apply, apropos, at, author, azn, ban add, ban list, ban remove, base, binary, bold, cache, calc, call, capabilities, capability add, capability list, capability remove, capability set, capability setdefault, capability unset, capitalize, change, changename, channel, channels, channelstats, chr, cmd, (5 more messages) 2011-07-17T10:44:39 @help greeting 2011-07-17T10:44:40 bhasker: Error: There is no command "greeting". 2011-07-17T10:44:43 ah 2011-07-17T10:44:44 @next 2011-07-17T10:44:44 sigh: Error: You must be registered to use this command. If you are already registered, you must either identify (using the identify command) or add a hostmask matching your current hostmask (using the "hostmask add" command). 2011-07-17T10:45:04 @help action 2011-07-17T10:45:04 bhasker: (action ) -- Replies with as an action. use nested commands to your benefit here. 2011-07-17T10:45:15 @help action morning 2011-07-17T10:45:15 bhasker: Error: There is no command "action morning". 2011-07-17T10:45:34 @action morning 2011-07-17T10:45:34 * contestbot morning 2011-07-17T10:45:43 @action morning 2011-07-17T10:45:43 * contestbot morning 2011-07-17T10:45:48 morning 2011-07-17T10:45:53 @morning 2011-07-17T10:45:54 bhasker: No! 2011-07-17T10:46:01 bah 2011-07-17T10:46:16 @capability add 2011-07-17T10:46:16 bhasker: Error: The command "capability add" is available in the Admin and Channel plugins. Please specify the plugin whose command you wish to call by using its name as a command before "capability add". 2011-07-17T10:46:30 @help cmd 2011-07-17T10:46:30 bhasker: (cmd takes no arguments) -- Returns some interesting command-related statistics. 2011-07-17T10:46:35 @help cmd 2011-07-17T10:46:35 bhasker: (cmd takes no arguments) -- Returns some interesting command-related statistics. 2011-07-17T10:46:39 @cmd 2011-07-17T10:46:39 bhasker: I offer a total of 357 commands in 47 command-based plugins. I have processed 97 commands. 2011-07-17T10:46:49 hmm 357 commands in 47 plugins 2011-07-17T10:47:00 @plugins 2011-07-17T10:47:00 bhasker: (plugins ) -- Returns the names of all plugins that contain . 2011-07-17T10:47:07 @plugins reply 2011-07-17T10:47:07 bhasker: The "reply" command is available in the Note and Reply plugins. 2011-07-17T10:47:14 @help reply 2011-07-17T10:47:14 bhasker: (reply ) -- Replies with . Equivalent to the alias, 'echo $nick: $1'. 2011-07-17T10:47:22 @reply morning 2011-07-17T10:47:22 bhasker: morning 2011-07-17T10:47:29 @help note 2011-07-17T10:47:29 bhasker: (note ) -- Retrieves a single note by its unique note id. Use the 'note list' command to see what unread notes you have. 2011-07-17T10:47:37 @help reply 2011-07-17T10:47:37 bhasker: (reply ) -- Replies with . Equivalent to the alias, 'echo $nick: $1'. 2011-07-17T10:47:47 *** mleise has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2011-07-17T10:53:48 omnomnom, <3 butter chicken 2011-07-17T10:55:13 *** foRei has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T10:59:21 *** sigh has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection) 2011-07-17T11:14:50 *** jmreardon has quit IRC (Quit: jmreardon) 2011-07-17T11:24:17 *** pvarga has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T11:42:53 hehe, i have an if* macro 2011-07-17T12:01:34 *** amstan has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T12:01:34 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o amstan 2011-07-17T12:05:14 what exactly do you mean by an if* macro? 2011-07-17T12:05:56 *** nullkuhl has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2011-07-17T12:08:56 jmcarthur: have you ever wanted to test an expression for true-ness, and if it is, use it later, in another expression? 2011-07-17T12:09:22 this question is pretty dump, surely you had that experience :D 2011-07-17T12:09:26 dumb 2011-07-17T12:10:29 the idea, is that i implicitely bind a variable to the return value of the test-expression 2011-07-17T12:11:38 (if* (return-value (some-function-that-returns-a-valueable-value)) (call-this-if-true) (or-this-of-false)) 2011-07-17T12:12:04 of course return-value can appear in (call-this-if-true) 2011-07-17T12:12:43 *** Palmik has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection) 2011-07-17T12:20:08 jmcarthur: i guess in haskell it isnt necessary, cause you can use "where" here, pretty nicely 2011-07-17T12:22:46 *** jmreardon has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T12:26:02 so you mean something like let p = ... in if p then f p else g p ? 2011-07-17T12:26:27 exactly 2011-07-17T12:26:31 ah 2011-07-17T12:26:43 let's see... 2011-07-17T12:26:58 liftA3 bool id 2011-07-17T12:27:53 say i define foo to be that, then i can say foo applyToPWhenTrue applyToPWhenFalse p 2011-07-17T12:28:06 assuming bool is predefined (which it usually is, for me) 2011-07-17T12:28:31 bool being like if but being an actual function instead of stupid syntax sugar and having the conditional as the last argument, which is nice for point free code 2011-07-17T12:29:10 ah poop i did that wrong if bool has p as the last argument 2011-07-17T12:29:36 oh well, that's roughly what i would probably do if i was defining a handy combinator 2011-07-17T12:29:52 although... i'm not sure why i would need p in the branches 2011-07-17T12:30:11 usually when i evaluate a boolean i only need it once 2011-07-17T12:30:15 hm, i need a moment 2011-07-17T12:30:38 define foo to be :liftA3 bool id ? 2011-07-17T12:30:43 what does this mean? 2011-07-17T12:30:47 well, let me be more precise here 2011-07-17T12:30:56 are those all functions? 2011-07-17T12:31:00 bool :: a -> a -> Bool -> a 2011-07-17T12:31:05 is it like f o g o h ? 2011-07-17T12:32:28 foo f g = (join . liftA2) (bool f g) 2011-07-17T12:32:42 and then i can say foo f g p 2011-07-17T12:33:00 foo :: (Bool -> a) -> (Bool -> a) -> Bool -> a 2011-07-17T12:33:01 so foo returns a function 2011-07-17T12:33:05 yeah 2011-07-17T12:33:09 well 2011-07-17T12:33:26 in haskell, any function of multiple arguments is the same thing as a function that takes one argument and returns a function 2011-07-17T12:33:42 the above definition is also the same as: 2011-07-17T12:33:49 foo f g p = (join . liftA2) (bool f g) p 2011-07-17T12:34:08 of course if i do it that way there is no point in using those combinators 2011-07-17T12:34:13 so it's the same as: 2011-07-17T12:34:21 foo f g p = bool (f p) (g p) p 2011-07-17T12:34:33 i forgot the precise name of this... 2011-07-17T12:34:51 the conversion from the one without p to the one with p is called eta expansion 2011-07-17T12:35:33 the conversion from the last version to the first version would be called "making it point free" 2011-07-17T12:35:41 well, not completely point free 2011-07-17T12:35:46 currying 2011-07-17T12:35:54 but point free at least in that we are eliminating the binding to p 2011-07-17T12:36:43 currying is converting a function that take a tuple (all arguments at once) to a function that takes one argument at a time, returning intermediate functions 2011-07-17T12:36:55 the uncurried version of foo might look like this: 2011-07-17T12:37:03 foo (f, g, p) = bool (f p) (g p) p 2011-07-17T12:37:52 well, these things doesnt really apply to lisp 2011-07-17T12:37:56 it would be too cumbersome 2011-07-17T12:37:57 sure they do 2011-07-17T12:38:00 well yeah 2011-07-17T12:38:02 no, let me tell you 2011-07-17T12:38:04 but it's doable in lisp 2011-07-17T12:38:16 not necessarily recommended :) 2011-07-17T12:38:17 you'd need funcall and all that uglyness 2011-07-17T12:38:25 can just use lambda? 2011-07-17T12:38:28 *can't 2011-07-17T12:38:36 i don't know what funcall is 2011-07-17T12:39:06 funcall is for calling a function, if it resides in a symbol's function-cell 2011-07-17T12:39:30 that just goes over my head :\ 2011-07-17T12:39:46 what is "a symbol's function call"? 2011-07-17T12:39:51 cell 2011-07-17T12:39:56 cell 2011-07-17T12:40:35 a symbol can be made bound to a value, and a function value at the same time 2011-07-17T12:40:44 o_O 2011-07-17T12:40:55 so functions are not treated as values? 2011-07-17T12:41:08 they are function-values 2011-07-17T12:41:11 :) 2011-07-17T12:41:16 *** jbrechtel has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T12:41:32 i can say in lisp: (list list), which will print (3) 2011-07-17T12:41:35 for example 2011-07-17T12:41:53 assuming some definition of list i assume... 2011-07-17T12:42:17 yes, (symbol-value 'list) => 3 2011-07-17T12:42:40 (symbol-function 'list) => #built-in function...... 2011-07-17T12:43:32 actually symbols have a property list, they can have many things associated with, like a table 2011-07-17T12:43:37 so a symbol is really some sort of a key-value store then? used one way it gives one thing and used another way it gives another? 2011-07-17T12:43:41 ah 2011-07-17T12:44:39 but in scheme this isnt so 2011-07-17T12:44:54 a symbol effectively has 1 thing associated with 2011-07-17T12:44:58 i am more used to the scheme way 2011-07-17T12:46:51 what my if* actually does, is this: (let ((tempvar (test-function))) (if tempvar (function-to-call-if-true tempvar) (f-to-call-if-false))) 2011-07-17T12:47:02 its like your first suggestion 2011-07-17T12:47:09 is that real haskell btw? 2011-07-17T12:47:21 yes 2011-07-17T12:47:22 let p = ... in if p then f p else g p 2011-07-17T12:47:44 if p then f p else g p where p = something 2011-07-17T12:47:48 is this ok? 2011-07-17T12:47:54 yes 2011-07-17T12:48:12 so what is the difference between let and where? 2011-07-17T12:48:13 where and let have difference scoping rules sometimes 2011-07-17T12:48:18 *different 2011-07-17T12:49:14 let ... in ... forms an expression 2011-07-17T12:49:32 where is attached to a syntactic construct and doesn't create a value itself 2011-07-17T12:50:01 hm 2011-07-17T12:50:01 http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Let_vs._Where 2011-07-17T12:50:11 heh, even the same wording i just used 2011-07-17T12:50:17 but the something after where isnt evaluated multiple times, right? 2011-07-17T12:50:38 so there it must store the value 2011-07-17T12:50:43 no, it's shared if used multiple times in the syntactic construct it is bound to 2011-07-17T12:50:45 -there 2011-07-17T12:51:54 but the point is that "foo = ... where bar = ..." doesn't have a value. it's just creating a value called foo. however, "let bar = ... in ..." is itself an expression that can be nested inside other expressions 2011-07-17T12:53:06 actually, "... where bar = ..." might be an expression 2011-07-17T12:53:11 i never use where that way though 2011-07-17T12:53:25 *** _flag <_flag!~flag@69-165-173-172.dsl.teksavvy.com> has quit IRC (Read error: No route to host) 2011-07-17T12:53:55 omg 2011-07-17T12:54:07 im not capable of parsing haskell today 2011-07-17T12:54:27 heh 2011-07-17T12:54:38 this will just confuse me, untill i read some tutorials 2011-07-17T12:54:43 which isnt gonna happen soon 2011-07-17T12:54:47 that code isn't very idiomatic anyway 2011-07-17T12:54:52 on the wiki page 2011-07-17T12:55:04 im reading the page you linked 2011-07-17T12:55:06 or it's complicated by the elipsis 2011-07-17T12:55:07 ah ok 2011-07-17T12:55:57 what i really liked in lisp, is that the code is soo homogene 2011-07-17T12:55:59 *** _flag <_flag!~flag@69-165-173-172.dsl.teksavvy.com> has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T12:56:04 homogenous 2011-07-17T12:56:07 sry 2011-07-17T12:56:11 homogeneous 2011-07-17T12:56:16 yep 2011-07-17T12:56:18 :) 2011-07-17T12:56:30 we say homogén 2011-07-17T12:57:08 haskell syntax is actually quite homogeneous too, aside from some (stupid) things like if-then-else 2011-07-17T12:57:19 not as homogeneous as lisp by any stretch 2011-07-17T12:57:49 but function application is pretty homogeneous aside from infix functions (which you can use as prefix functions anyway) 2011-07-17T12:58:08 let/where breaks that a bit, but that's just because haskell is not a macro language 2011-07-17T12:58:38 when you write haskell, you're not making an AST. you're making a mathematical expression. 2011-07-17T12:59:07 at least conceptually, that's the way i approach it differently that i would something like lisp 2011-07-17T12:59:14 *than 2011-07-17T12:59:42 AST? 2011-07-17T13:00:27 have you used logic programming languages? like prolog? i wonder if somebody will use that 2011-07-17T13:00:38 id sure take a look at it 2011-07-17T13:01:19 yesterday i was browsing the wiki looking for those, but there arent many 2011-07-17T13:02:21 i've done a fair bit of research into logic programming languages 2011-07-17T13:02:40 at a high level, logic programming is like a utopia of programming 2011-07-17T13:03:07 in that it's great for making specifications, and it would be great if specifications were enough to make working, efficient code 2011-07-17T13:03:22 yeah, but you are in the dark as to how much resources your computation will take up 2011-07-17T13:03:47 the problem is mainly that of (either) efficiency or understanding/controlling *whether* your program will be efficient 2011-07-17T13:04:36 IMO, an ideal would be to write your code in a logic programming language (not really like prolog, but maybe something like it), and then *derive* a functional program from it with the assistance of automated tools 2011-07-17T13:04:58 basically deriving a program from a specification, but with predictable and controllable resource usage 2011-07-17T13:05:12 and with a compiler-checked proof that the derivation is correct 2011-07-17T13:05:44 yeah, you'd be better of inventing human level AI first, and then forgetting about the whole thing :D 2011-07-17T13:05:50 off* 2011-07-17T13:05:55 hm? 2011-07-17T13:06:00 what i propose is quite doable 2011-07-17T13:06:16 it is quite hard i imagine 2011-07-17T13:06:29 nah, we have the technology already 2011-07-17T13:06:44 we just don't have the language(s), and the tools aren't very friendly yet 2011-07-17T13:06:50 there are "proofing" programs that can check other programs, but im not sure if it is applied as an every day practice 2011-07-17T13:07:09 i'm talking about proof checkers, not proof generators 2011-07-17T13:07:31 yeah, me too 2011-07-17T13:07:35 if you do a program derivation such that each step is trivially provable by your tools, then by the time you are done you have a full proof 2011-07-17T13:08:31 well yeah, it's not the popular thing to do right now. that's why i stated it as a (realistic) ideal rathe than as reality ;) 2011-07-17T13:08:39 *rather than 2011-07-17T13:09:25 and what i said(AI) means, that basically, we invent these abstractions, because we can no longer can write programs in low level languages 2011-07-17T13:09:44 we want to write complex software, but we can see them through in low level languages 2011-07-17T13:09:53 but an AI wouldnt have this kind of restriciton 2011-07-17T13:10:15 i thought you were relating the discussion to AI because you were pointing out some difficulty in what i said 2011-07-17T13:10:24 i see AI as a much much much more difficult goal 2011-07-17T13:11:02 im not an expert, but my opinion is that ai isnt fundamentally more difficult 2011-07-17T13:11:39 its just another kind of problem, where combinatoric explosion shows up 2011-07-17T13:11:50 well, we have the technology i'm talking about today, and IMO we won't have the kind of AI i think you are talking about at least several decades 2011-07-17T13:12:25 why do you think we dont have that ai today? 2011-07-17T13:12:49 i mean, maybe we only need bigger connectivity in an already existing neural simulation 2011-07-17T13:14:45 it sounds highly speculative 2011-07-17T13:16:22 mcstar: are you including fully general intelligence in your definition of AI? Just to clarify... 2011-07-17T13:16:36 (Sorry I'm catching up) 2011-07-17T13:16:43 jmcarthur: do you think we need some kind of fundamental mathematical/computational discovery for AI? 2011-07-17T13:17:14 jbrechtel: generic, human level ai, not task specific, like in the turing sense 2011-07-17T13:17:22 mcstar: i'm uncomfortable answering that question unless i know more specifically what you are talking about 2011-07-17T13:17:27 okay human level AI 2011-07-17T13:18:32 i suspect that we lack hundreds of fundamental biological, mathematical, computational, and physical discoveries before we have a chance of reaching that point 2011-07-17T13:19:29 also, the very notion is very fuzzy and raises a lot of questions. would such an AI even be subservient? 2011-07-17T13:19:53 it's possible that it could be 2011-07-17T13:20:24 but i doubt that we are smart enough to make an AI that smart that is also going to take orders 2011-07-17T13:20:32 it all depends on its experience, the way it collects all that knowledge that makes us call it intelligent 2011-07-17T13:20:33 It seems to be like consciousness is required for human level general intelligence. i.e. to think "I'm wasting my time on this approach" (the *I* being the important part). Consciousness certainly isn't understood enough for us to build it yet. 2011-07-17T13:20:50 Well, I say certainly...I am presuming there...I don't know what the cutting edge research is. 2011-07-17T13:21:13 i think at least 99.9999% of people that have this conversation are being presumptious ;) 2011-07-17T13:21:27 Sure it's possible that consciousness will be an emergent property of a good enough learning engine, but that's just speculation. 2011-07-17T13:21:37 right 2011-07-17T13:21:47 Heh...I should have just dropped 'certainly' off to begin with... :) 2011-07-17T13:21:57 and if it's merely emergent, it's likely that obedience would also have to be emergent (which i find highly unlikely) 2011-07-17T13:22:07 my view, is that i dont think I am conscious 2011-07-17T13:22:14 Good point 2011-07-17T13:22:34 So now it's a philosphical discussion 2011-07-17T13:22:47 not really 2011-07-17T13:22:53 i don't think it is yet 2011-07-17T13:23:10 i mean if it quacks like a duck and look slike a duck its a duck(or similarly) 2011-07-17T13:23:19 Not conscious -> no free will, right? 2011-07-17T13:23:26 *** Apophis_ has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T13:23:40 thats a really bad thing, to discuss free will 2011-07-17T13:23:47 its a marginal question 2011-07-17T13:23:47 Sorry I really don't mean to derail 2011-07-17T13:23:54 Perhaps you could describe what you mean by not conscious 2011-07-17T13:24:34 my opinion on the matter, summarized, is that AI of this sort will probably never be mathematically rigorous, and therefore never understood to a level to be as useful as just applying a human to a project 2011-07-17T13:24:56 why i say its marginal, is because there can be many deterministic models, arbitrarily complex, that you'd need extremely long time/input/calculations to say with certainty that it is actually deterministic, and you cant have sort of free will 2011-07-17T13:24:57 well 2011-07-17T13:25:04 s/as useful/more useful/ 2011-07-17T13:25:14 of course a human-level AI would be as useful as any other human 2011-07-17T13:25:31 i simply doubt that it would be any *more*... reliable 2011-07-17T13:26:12 ah this discussion on free will is certainly philosophical 2011-07-17T13:26:24 sorry... :( 2011-07-17T13:26:31 its like discussing this problem in physics: determinism/chaod/quantum probabilities 2011-07-17T13:27:29 what ever the fact is, we arent by any measure restricited by it 2011-07-17T13:27:33 restricted 2011-07-17T13:28:07 so, i believe we can make human level ai, without answering the question is the ai/are we conscious? 2011-07-17T13:29:34 i agree that *if* we can make human-level (equivalent or superior in intelligence, not necessary equivalent in behavior) ai, we will not need to answer that question 2011-07-17T13:30:22 jmcarthur: what do you mean by "mathematically rigorous"? 2011-07-17T13:30:42 on a fundamental level, everything is 2011-07-17T13:31:19 you cant come up with an example that isnt correct under some settings 2011-07-17T13:33:09 let me tell you one story: 2011-07-17T13:33:34 yesterday, in a version of my bot i introduced an error(involuntarily) 2011-07-17T13:33:52 the bot supposed to be standing still, if it couldnt see any food 2011-07-17T13:34:07 but instead, it made some adjustment to its shape(its a snake-bot) 2011-07-17T13:34:47 until i figured out, what exactly the bug was, can i assume, that the bot simply is intelligent? 2011-07-17T13:35:15 it does something, that i didnt want it to, and if i look hard enough, maybe i can superficially give some reason for it 2011-07-17T13:36:01 all in all, im inclined to think, that these "full-brain" simulations will eventually succeed 2011-07-17T13:36:41 if one can simulate the whole brain on a fine-enough scale, a system capable of showing intelligent behaviour will emerge 2011-07-17T13:37:10 (given right training is present, and the output is interpreted correctly9 2011-07-17T13:37:11 ) 2011-07-17T13:37:52 by mathematically rigorous i basically mean fully understood and intentional 2011-07-17T13:38:03 I'm inclined to say that since it's fixed behavior, even though not what you expect, that it doesn't sound like it would pass for intelligence. But your response would be that it's likely all our behavior is really 'fixed', it's just more complicated chains of inputs and outputs 2011-07-17T13:38:23 oops, meant to end that with ? 2011-07-17T13:39:03 jbrechtel: i think this is like deciding if something is really random 2011-07-17T13:39:07 yes 2011-07-17T13:39:25 so, youre correct, id say that 2011-07-17T13:39:54 i mean you correctly assumed that id say what you thought id say :D 2011-07-17T13:40:56 jmcarthur: the only problem with that, is that even mathematics isnt rigorous by your definition then 2011-07-17T13:41:28 take the simple axioms of integers 2011-07-17T13:42:16 im not sure when did they write them down explicitely, but the research it spawned is still growing(fast!), so you cant say, that it was intentional 2011-07-17T13:42:30 or fully comprehended when the decided on those axioms 2011-07-17T13:42:34 the->they 2011-07-17T13:42:37 *** mleise has joined #aichallenge 2011-07-17T13:43:39 btw, if you look hard enough, you can find all the answers to any intelligent question, encoded in the digits of Pi 2011-07-17T13:43:52 (in fact, to every question) 2011-07-17T13:43:56 hehe 2011-07-17T13:44:00 this sucks 2011-07-17T13:44:22 i can see why Cantor went whoo-hoo when the contemplated the many infinities 2011-07-17T13:59:09 oh, and another thing that i'd like to share, since we were talking about these kind of things, is what really sets up apart from algorithms/computers, is our special, and sensory environment we live in 2011-07-17T13:59:48 we get an immense amount of input every second 2011-07-17T14:00:13 and we live in a society, and in a universe with physical rules, we need to obey, to keep living 2011-07-17T14:00:25