[ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford

[Mike Dougherty]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> I suppose the computer guided planes use lookup tables derived from how
>> humans have played during the development phase, but the point is that with
>> a sufficiently large lookup table, a computer is indistinguishable from a
>
> Large lookup tables can be done, but are highly inefficient. I'm sure
> they have a slightly more elegant solution than that. You could
> probably codify a pretty good fighter pilot with less than 100 rules.
>
> 1) Try to get behind the other guy (at least for WWI and WWII era fighting)
> 2) Try to stay out from in front of the other guy.
> 3) Shoot where the other guy will be when your bullets get there

Kelly, I had a similar reaction to spike's repeated use of "large
lookup tables" as a generic solution to any problem and was about to
comment when I saw you beat me to it.  Ironically then you enumerate a
list of tactics as an alternative to giant lookup table - which is
effectively a lookup table of a slightly-higher-level rules.  True
it's not a tape with a 'giant lookup table' of states and actions to
apply  (which I think is where spike's coming from)

Spike, I assume you're familiar with Conway's Game of Life (cellular
automata).  I like the idea that complex behaviors can be discovered
(or emerge) on top of very simple rules.  Another great example you
may not be familiar with is "boids" (use your favorite search
appliance to find an online sim)  The algorithm models the behavior of
a bird flock - with very simple rules for each bird.  The chaotic
appearance of flock behavior begins to closely approximate the
characteristic of real bird flocks (which I find fascinating,
especially with hundreds or thousands of birds)  In OOP parlance, you
could probably subclass the boid with a few fighter rules and do a
convincing model of your WWII game.