Agreed,
but I think as a first level project I can accept the limitiation of modeliing
the AI 'as' a human, as we are a long way off of turning it loose as its own
robot, and this will allow it to act and reason more as we do. Currently I
have PersonAI as a subset of Person, where it will
Goals don't necessarily need to be complex or even explicitly defined. One
goal might just be to minimise the difference between experiences (whether
real or simulated) and expectations. In this way the system learns what a
normal state of being is, and detect deviations.
On 21/11/06,
I don't know that I'd consider that an example of an uncomplicated
goal. That seems to me much more complicated than simple responses to
sensory inputs. Valuable, yes, and even vital for any significant
intelligence, but definitely not at the minimal level of complexity.
An example of a
Things like finding recharging sockets are really more complex goals built
on top of more primitive systems. For example, if a robot heading for a
recharging socket loses a wheel its goals should change from feeding to
calling for help. If it cannot recognise a deviation from the normal
state
Well, in the language I normally use to discuss AI planning, this
would mean that
1)keeping charged is a supergoal
2)
The system knows (via hard-coding or learning) that
finding the recharging socket == keeping charged
(i.e. that the former may be considered a subgoal of the latter)
3)
The
On 21/11/06, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sounds better to me. In general, I'm against attempts to get
complete, consistent, certain, and absolute descriptions (of either
internal or external state), and prefer partial,
not-necessarily-consistent, uncertain, and relative ones --- not
On 11/22/06, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, in the language I normally use to discuss AI planning, this
would mean that
1)keeping charged is a supergoal
2)The system knows (via hard-coding or learning) that
finding the recharging socket == keeping charged
If charged becomes
