Re: What did that thread indicate?
- From: "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:19:18 -0400
<humiguel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1127606995.524536.238130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Traveler" <traveler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:t9dli1p50av1kdt2h6orqgh6jd7emjphar@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 15 Sep 2005 15:53:17 -0700, humiguel@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>>A reinforcement-learning machine can, at least in principle,
>>>>generate secondary behaviour by combining primary behaviours,
>>>>testing that in the environment and learning from the feedback.
>>>
>>> I agree but I would not use the word 'generate'. Reinforcement
>>> learning is a selection mechanism. It does not generate anything. It
>>> assumes the a priori existence of behaviors. It is used for combining
>>> low-level behaviors into high-level apetitive and aversive behaviors.
>>> A different mechanism and principle (motor coordination) is
>>> responsible for actually generating/creating the behaviors.
>>
>>
>>One thing is certain, using "shaping" (differential reinforcement of
>>successive approximations) animals will acquire behavior that would never
>>have otherwise been observed.
>
> How can you ever be sure of that?
Well, you can't be completely sure, of course. But there are responses that
you can shape that are highly unlikely. For example, you can train rats to
press a lever that requires more static force than their body weight.
>There are many behaviours that
> exist in latent form and only manifest themselves when the right
> conditions are met. I'm sure that even if you were never seen
> killing someone, you'll do that if the right conditions arise. And
> if you enlist in the army, you'll be trained to do precisely that.
I'm not sure that it makes sense to say that "behaviors" (not a real word -
but using it is very tempting) exist when they are not occurring. But I know
what you are saying.
>
> Anyway, what kind of behaviours are you talking about? For instance
> can you train a pigeon to stand belly-up, with its eyes closed as if
> it were dead?
You mean lay on its back (belly up) with its eyes closed? Might be hard.
>
> In any case the situation were you have a human manipulating the
> environment to achieve some goal is very different from the one
> where a machine must learn from the feedback provided by the
> environment to its own actions.
Not sure what you are driving at, here.
>
>
> Antonio Esteves
>
> --
> Corby - A new approach to Artificial Intelligence
> http://futalgo.planetaclix.pt/corby/index.htm
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What did that thread indicate?
- From: Curt Welch
- Re: What did that thread indicate?
- References:
- What did that thread indicate?
- From: HMS Beagle
- Re: What did that thread indicate?
- From: humiguel
- Re: What did that thread indicate?
- From: Traveler
- Re: What did that thread indicate?
- From: Glen M. Sizemore
- Re: What did that thread indicate?
- From: humiguel
- What did that thread indicate?
- Prev by Date: Re: What did that thread indicate?
- Next by Date: Re: What did that thread indicate?
- Previous by thread: Re: What did that thread indicate?
- Next by thread: Re: What did that thread indicate?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|