Re: Where is behavior AI now?
- From: "Randy M. Dumse" <rmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 23:20:35 -0500
"dpa" <dpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156984427.504174.48370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Seems like the argument has shifted from what is possible with the
hardware to what I personally have accomplished with it, which
seems beside the point.
Yes, the argument shifted. No intention of slight to you, though. Just
an attempt at a stair step argument. i.e. 1) What's in it is limited and
we agree on that. 2) Next step was to see if I could get concurrance on
what can be put in it is also limited (given hardware suite remains the
same).
Again returning to premises, I have noticed limited inputs and outputs
on our robots. I have hypothesized, maybe that means there are limited
combinations and permutations of inputs to outputs. I have not yet found
an argument that convinces me one way or the other. I suspect there is a
limited set. I also suspect many arguments will be presented suggesting
inifinte sets, but when examined carefully, it will be found the sets
have non-unique members, meaning they can be reduced to limited sets. My
thinking is seemingly infinite sets can be reduced by removing the
analog components of outputs to a variable, while the method of
calculation of the output remains static.
Now, I do favor the idea of a limited set. If there are a limited set,
then we can be sure we have programmed every possible behavior into our
robot. Likewise, we can possibly identify every possible transition from
one behavior to another. We can know if we have addressed all the robot
can do. We can know if we have made the robot as intelligent as
possible. We might even be able to see every possible emergent property.
Wouldn't that be a significant goal?
So how can I imagine this might be possible. Let's check the low end
limit. Look at Braitenberg 101. His very first robot has one photosensor
and one motor. Can we construct a finite set of behaviors for this
robot? I say yes. The robot can 1) drive the motor toward the light with
some gain function, 2) drive away from the light with some gain
function, 3) drive the motor at some speed function ignoring the light.
4) not drive the motor. That's it. Any other output behavior can be
recast as a combination of the above outputs.
In fact to demonstrate just that, notice #4 is really just a special
case of #3, where the speed variable is zero'd (depending on how the
hardware details are done, but as far as externally observable behavior,
the point stands).
Now, to my late-night-after-a-hard-week thinking I can't come up with
any other possible behaviors for this robot. I can come up with ideas of
random behaviors, but any I can think of, can be reduced to sequenes of
the set of three listed.
So I am still very found of the conjecture, limited inputs and limited
outputs means all possible atomic behaviors can be accounted.
Any display of "emergent intelligence" will come not from the behaviors,
but from the sequencing of them.
Pretty strong argument above as it seems to me just now. No counter
argument comes to mind. Hummm... that seems an important enough thought
to stop this post here, and take up your wonderful examples in a
separate post later, and see if anyone has counter argument.
--
Randy M. Dumse
www.newmicros.com
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Where is behavior AI now?
- From: Randy M. Dumse
- Re: Where is behavior AI now?
- From: dpa
- Re: Where is behavior AI now?
- Prev by Date: Re: Where is behavior AI now?
- Next by Date: Re: the Fish and the Robot
- Previous by thread: Re: Where is behavior AI now?
- Next by thread: Re: Where is behavior AI now?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|