On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Zan Lynx <[email protected]> wrote: > Anthony Jackson wrote: > >> The other factor here is that computers are only predictable if you've had >> considerable experience with them. It's not like you're going to be >> publishing the source code for your autopilots, nor is it like you won't be >> updating the logic of your autopilots as people work out ways of beating >> them. Incidentally, this applies to humans as well, you do need to update >> your tactics manuals every so often. > > Yes, with regard to human tactics training, that is very true. That is why > US army and air forces would train against special training groups that used > the Soviet Union's tactics manuals, for example. > > But humans can reach beyond their training when they need to, or sometimes > they make a mistake which later turns out to have really been the right > thing to do. That's less likely for a computer running a program. >
It's less likely for humans than you think. Current research shows the reaction takes place *before* mentation about what that rection will be. In other words, you do something (jink left in your fighter plane) and then you think "I should jink left". > I am thinking that a computer which rewrites its own programs based on > experience or predictions of opponents future actions is no longer just > running a program; at that point it is at least an LAI (in my opinion). And > that is a whole new thing than a Skill 17 piloting program. It's state of the art AI. For 1975. Pretty routine today, used in all sorts of stuff. -- David Scheidt [email protected] _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
