Re: Where is behavior AI now?

"dan michaels" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Curt Welch wrote:

Joe wrote:


And so maybe that is why behaviour-based robotics seems to have
stalled. A behavioural approach leaves out the details that are vital
to the implementation.

Yes, something is left out, that's for sure. The question remains what
that is however.



Using Brooks as a primary example, one can only conclude that BBR has
stalled, regards going past the basics of intelligence. And what might
be your conjecture as to why this is so?

I've not read Brooks and I have no idea what BBR is. So I can't comment
directly no why that might have stalled since I have no idea what it is.

But on the general search for intelligence, especially ones that attempt to
use ideas from behaviorism, I think the problem has always been a lack of
having the correct model. That is, we just don't have have the correct
algorithm, or description yet. Though behaviorism has shown us the basics,
it falls far short from showing how to implement it.

It's like documenting the flight path of a bird, without any understanding
of how the bird actually manages to fly. Even a complete understanding of
behavior, doesn't make implementation obvious (but does allow you to know
when you have the wrong implementation).

Human and animal behavior only looks simple if you limit the environment
and reinforcers to something very simple - such as what happens in a
Skinner box. Otherwise, it's a a huge parallel process where all our
behaviors and motivations are interacting and competing with each other.
What behaviorism hasn't answered, is how to implement a large parallel
learning system - something that produces behavior so complex, we can't
even understand it unless we limit it to an isolated test in a Skinner
box. This is the same missing piece which has been missing for over 50
years.

It's stalled for 50 years, because the step from how single behaviors are
modified by reinforcement, to how millions are modified in parallel, is a
huge gap to cross. No one has found a path across it yet. But even though
we have not crossed it, I think much progress has been made in
understanding the nature of the problem.

It's like trying to reverse engineer an encryption algorithm. It's just
very hard to do. You really can't "see" the algorithm in the behavior.
You simply have to try different algorithms until you find the one that
works. Reverse engineering the basics of the brain and human intelligence
seems to have much in common with this type of problem.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No easy road to AI
    ... The difference here is not important to our abstract understanding ... Pictures however are not temporal data. ... It's basically how TD-Gammon works. ... TD-Gammon is such an interesting RL algorithm. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: As the Crow flies.
    ... Because you can't comprehend the basics. ... I suspect that the algorithm you're ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Need some help interpreting results from new compression method
    ... ok time to do some basics ... am at this moment looking for statistical outcomes. ... Once knowing the statistical 'fallout' after engaging my algorithm I ... would know each individual lines compressibility, chance of occurence, ...
    (comp.compression)
  • Re: algorithm to sum run time of simultaenous jobs?
    ... jobs are a match for the size of the objects you're trying to fit into ... the 5 bins? ... then my understanding is that there is no algorithm outside of ...
    (rec.puzzles)
  • Re: MISSING NUMBER
    ... missing number most efficiently? ... number could be too big to store. ... The OP suggested an algorithm, ... lawyerly reading of the terms of the puzzle. ...
    (comp.programming)