We could crawl before we walk. Once the kinks and difficulties are worked out it would be easier (and probably cheaper) to begin mining more profitable objects.
I have a couple friends at the EPA who recently hired an electrician to come in and update some things. They got into a big discussion about Energy Star being a load of crap. People who work with this stuff know that Energy Star has been a farce for a long time.
Look at Battlefront 3, though, I have to wonder: Do they THINK they're making a good crossover between flight sim and ease of play? It would capture people from both crowds, casual player and harder-headed fan
Do they think that reducing the semantic details of the game allows a broader storyline that is more accessible more immersive, or something else? ie you fly a starship into an enemy hangar and then get out in order to fight your way through the ship.
I remember making names for EVERY pilot icon in X-Wing to coincide with the names from the movies. It was just amazing to feel like you were really affecting the outcome of a campaign with the Rebellion or Empire. The new Battlefront (nor the old ones) doesn't really feel like that. It feels like I was dropped into the middle of something and I have absolutely no connection to my character or what is going on. It feels cold and detached (a little like George Lucas, frankly).
Maybe I'm just being an old grouch (at 29) but I want capital ship battles. I want squadrons of fighters engaging in battle. We have the technology, why do they refuse to make this kind of stuff and do Lego StarWars instead?
With current MMO technology one would think that a whole host of possibilities would open up. With current single player gamer technology wouldn't it be quite possible to design an immersive simulator to rival God himself?
At the very least an update to their classic flight sims seems like a sure-fire hit.
Summary: First, there was a relationship with someone who I *thought* was nerdy. Basically, she was able to feign enough interest in various subjects, or act like she knew things, when in fact she was really just good at memorizing things and taking tests. Little curiosity, very business-like, and ultimately ended up being pretty messed up in the head. Ruined my head.
Had a relationship with a hot redhead. She was insane, I mean totally nuts. Great arm candy, but she made me miserable.
Met my current girl online. She's wonderful. She's calm in the face of my neuroses and oddities, I reassure her in the face of hers. She allows me to contribute and help her with stuff, she loves to learn (she's helping me learn japanese, for instance, which I know is cliched these days). It's grand. She's not the hottest little mama around, but that actually makes me feel better after putting up with the BS of many "short relationships" and 2 longer relationships in which some girls were OBSESSED with their looks. I love her to death. She's a great blend between nerdy and socially/physically active.
Yes, the sex is fantastic, and so is nearly everything else. Only 2 years in, but after searching for the last 10 years it's finally paid off! If you have someone who is shy and nerdy it might be even better, as the two of you can explore together.
What's the point, other than my gushing about my situation? There seems to be someone out there for everybody. Just keep looking (I found her through online dating, I kid you not) by meeting others. Join clubs, explore things you've always wanted to do. You'll be a happier person, and in that way you will probably attract the kind of people you want to be around anyway, and maybe someone who is very special.
The cliche of the dork glued to his computer is a sad trap. There are other things out there that you'll love, I guarantee it. Just get out there and you'll eventually find that you grow into the kind of person that you love and that someone else probably will too.
btw, I'm no social charmer. I hate that kind of BS. Give me blunt honesty and a real conversation about something. While a few social graces are good, I think that teaching geeks how to be fake will just turn many of them off to what being social is SUPPOSED to be about: Respecting others. On the other hand, I've met geeks that LOVE that kind of schmoozing, which makes me ill, so YMMV.
What are you getting at precisely? I can see a couple of things you might be trying to say: Are you implying that a personal experience is the only worthwhile one? Do group experiences somehow not count as building up an experience surrounding something?
Is it a problem that when people come together they all have pre-built relationships with something? Does it someone make one's own experience less genuine? I don't want to put words in your mouth, though.
The same could be said of ANYTHING in the world that people come together in any group to enjoy, ever. People find something they like and develop a personal relationship (interest) with it, then they come together to enjoy it. That's what friendships are based on (though perhaps the relationships are formed around ideas or values that each person finds agreable instead of just music, for instance).
Or are you saying that I already went into that concert preconditioned to see it as a moving experience? I posit that I was rather underwhelmed by the people around us, by our seats, and was rather wary of the whole thing once we got there and things got started, so I'm not sure I was totally primed to have some sort of high-minded experience. I think it hit me when around the 3nd song in the concert some kid got up in the middle of the floor of the opera house seats and just started dancing. He finally walked out into the aisle and just went nuts. None of the perfectly dressed ushers stopped him. Soon he had a group around him, then it became the whole front of the stage that was filled, and suddenly the entire floor seemed to get up and start grooving and shaking and dancing. I'd never seen anything like it at any concert.
Maybe it was just one person that was primed to have that kind of experience and it spread to others? Were there more people who went in with a prec-conceived notion and, being white and stuffy, they only needed a catalyst like a line of dominoes?
Although I agree with you to an extent, I hope you're wrong.
Having been to a few great acts, David Byrne most recently at Chicago's Civic Opera House, it was an almost religious experience when he had an entire formal opera house jumping and shaking and movin' it. I mean it brought to tears to my eyes. It was 100x better than the album, and worth every penny paid.
Now, I understand that the mentality is that it can be had for free, but that seems dangerous, as it deprives the artist of what they really are there for: Perforance. Also, the fidelity is simply not as good as a concert (even lossless) and the human component of things is taken away. In short, it really is inferior, but I understand that technology has trained many people to eschew concert-going.
And how popular was Mozart a generation after he died? Did most people recognize his genius? No. They'd say "Oh that sounds nice!" Modern pop music began with The Beatles, just as Mozart redefined and pushed the boundaries of music theory during his time.
Timeless implies not only mastery of an art, but that music moves anyone from any generation given that they can appreciate it.
Their music is also emotionally timeless. Try listening to Revolver, for instance. If it doesn't move you at all, check your pulse.
Mozart is dying out. How many people do YOU know that would go to a Mozart concert and really appreciate it and be moved by it? It's taught academically in music history, but Amadeus was no more than a fad (and a cad) in his time.
Even up and coming artists cite the Beatles as an influence. They will be timeless. Billy Joel will not be timeless. Sting will not be timeless. Coolio will not be timeless. As someone who disliked the Beatles for 20 years and remained ignorant, but finally listened to their recordings and quickly became a big fan of the fab four, it seems obvious that their music strikes a chord that will resonate for many years to come.
I won't go so far as to say you don't know much about music, but I will say that it may be worth re-examining your views and understanding of music and media history.
I have 3 friends who have all gotten starting jobs as police offices in different districts in the last 4 years. 2 of them quit after a few months when it became obvious that the acts they were asked to commit were not even close to being in line with serving the public interest and safety. The third person is seriously questioning his career choice.
I say that without proper oversight and regardless of training, people with too much power often do despicable, selfish things because they can a) Get away with it and b) the justification for these acts comes from having that power in the first place.
I have to run for the holidays, but here's my small opinion: We have so much compliance in our 2 person financial planning business (I know we're talking about silicon valley) that it is OUT OF CONTROL. Either you have to work yourself into the ground to do a good job AND file all necessary compliance, or just be lax about actually doing a good job for clients in order to comply and make sure things look nicey-nice. That is, unless you're a big office with multiple staff and planners, which really just turns into sales anyway rather than job well done.
I KNOW we're talking about Silicon Valley, but I'm telling you it's happening all over. We are hobbling all sorts of industries with compliance issues at a time when we should streamline things. Yes, I know there's been fraud and we must protect workers' rights. I don't know how to deal with that part of the equation. It's going to happen no matter what as the big boys always seem to get a pass. Meanwhile the extra compliance and regulation is KILLING small businesses (who are actually trying to get the job done) like us.
SOrry to be a bit off topic, but I hope this brings a little perspective to the discussion.
Perhaps what the Long Tail Theory postulates is that people will somehow stop having a herd mentality once their experiences can be tailored on a whim. However, given that man is a social animal, I don't know whether (or how much) this change will occur.
Personal observation has been that people simply don't have the time these days to dig deeper. Pardon my acting a bit ignorant, but just as many people do not examine their own actions and lives, so too do they not examine many of the things they consume. People are not wired to "dig deeper" for more things they like, they are wired to extract pleasure from entertainment right now. Even people I know who are into obscure things do not seem to dig deeper (like bad movies, for instance).
It takes an intrusive event in someone's life to open them up to new ideas, and people don't like change, even when it obviously makes sense in scientific black and white. I see it in finance every day (when you say "Sir, if you do X you can save yourself thousands of dollars a year in taxes (or whatever)" and Mr. Sir simply won't do it. It's infuriating!) and it seems to occur in hobbies and interests as well. It's something I've been witnessing in myself and others for a long time.
Does anybody else think that eventually we might see some sort of tiny "stylus pad" that fits round the end of a finger? It could be a little white dot, so we can see where we're "clicking", there-by further decreasing fat finger syndrome.
I read it precisely that way, and I would mod you up if I still had the points.
Bravo, sir!
On a slightly related note: I sure hope this means they can bring some things to light that allow us to banish 90% of the people in this administration to some dark continenet where they can't harm anyone ever again.
First off, I feel your post veers somewhat from the original intent of the parent. The parent states that we should naturally let things happen, which includes letting an asteroid destroy earth, so that other, smarter species can arise. I simply added to that same part of the Venn diagram the notion that we have also arisen naturally and from that have a natural instinct for survival through perception of dangers (in this case an asteroid that could obliterate earth) and we have naturally evolved the ability to deal with the threats we perceive.
So, if we're going to talk about letting things happen naturally, all that has arisen from mankind is perfectly natural. Are those actions best for us as a species is another question completely, but the idea that we should somehow let our species be destroyed simply on the pretense that it is natural seems less than helpful, though I could be missing something (I'm not the smartest cookie in teh shed, as the kids say)
Now, if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that humanity can only do harm to the universe (another very abstract and difficult concept to get a conversation around) then I will bow to that and conceed that humanity ought to be destroyed.
Basically, it seems like we ought to look at the survival of our species as good, and the opposite as bad. How we do it can be (is?)a moral question, but any true argument against the survival of mankind over the long term is something that needs much more rigorous argument than simply "we kill each other and we're stupid so we should all die." If you feel that way, back it up with something. Also keep in mind you're on a science and technology site. Science and technology look to the future and dream of a better tomorrow where everyone's lives are better for the things we think of and create. It is a solid form of that endless spring many like to call "hope".
Of course there's Buddhist idea that neither good or bad exists, and we ought to just let things happen. That colors the argument differently perhaps, but we can leave that for another time.
Back in college I did an AI project with a guy named Jeff. We did a Freecell program that used both fitness and searching to come up with a solution to nearly every Freecell setup imaginable. (If you're reading this Jeff, I wish I'd done more of the programming. Sorry, I owe you one)
Could discreet situations, rather than individual actions, be stored and executed (or genetically developed) ahead of time? Even with a stripped down version of the game to calculate different outcomes, it seems like making "blocks" of actions might be more useful. It might even allow for more time to compute a course of action.
Making the response semi-random based, again, on some sort of fitness test could help change things up and narrow things down.
Oh, one other idea: Depending on the game, why not use the idea of macro -> micro? For instance, in a first person shooter, as soon as the computer sees the player, whatever information it gathers it can act on in broad strokes. Perhaps they see each other from across the board. The computer can take a number of actions based on that information, and as more information is gathered it can narrow down the best way to deal with the human player. Assessing the battlefield before diving into the fray. If the computer acts incorrectly on the incomplete information, then like a human player it may not be well prepared.
Just some ideas, i wrote a much better post earlier and it got erred out. I'm looking forward to what others have to say.
Back in college I worked with a guy, Jeff, on an AI project. We were to play the game Freecell through to its finish. (if you're reading this, jeff, I'm still sorry I didn't do more coding on that and I owe you one)
While I can understand the difficulties in doing a brute force search, and that a simplified "version" of the game could be helpful, OR even that parsed "states" or "instances" of situations in the game could be broken down and analyzed, wouldn't a simpler way be to use a fitness test on various actions? No, no... I lose points for not reading the article, perhaps.
We used a combination of fitness and searching to determine a way to win a Freecell setup. Admittedly this is VERY simplified, and done in a sort of static system as opposed to a (usually) dynamic one in games.
If there is less memory, the obvious answer seems to be to use a system to determine better ways of doing things. Rather than simplifying the game, couldn't the AI have a library of responses designed to fit certain situational profiles, then act in a (perhaps semi-random) manner that fits ? Perhaps the responses could be genetically determined, even.
Also, this use of situations versus individual actions could help lengthen the time the AI has to come up with a response.
Just some thoughts, though I'm sure others more experienced than me have these on the brain. I'm looking forward to the responses on this topic.
As a financial planner it is nice to hear about people who are in good financial health. However...
You know what? I know a lot more people who are deeply in debt due to medical issues, economic misfortune (being screwed over), and education burdens than I do who just binged on stuff. If you're going to get high and mighty about your pristine fiscal record, perhaps you haven't had the fortune of living in the real world yet where things go wrong while burdened with large responsibilities such as a home (not a condo), family and education.
Go ahead, mod me a troll, but even as someone who tries to get people to be more fiscally responsible, I am dead sick of people wagging it around when this issue comes up. We KNOW you're doing fine, enough already. Maybe you ought to get out and help those who have had less luck than yourself instead of sitting on a paper throne. If more people did that and fostered a greater sense of community instead of a holier-than-thou attitude, there might not be such a large crisis.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm. That seems to make sense. Are NEOs abundant enough to do that? How many NEOs are even candidates for mining?
They also have a rpgoram which syncs up the DVDs and tracks automatically. Otherwise, I wouldn't be buying Rifftrax.
We could crawl before we walk. Once the kinks and difficulties are worked out it would be easier (and probably cheaper) to begin mining more profitable objects.
So is something like this a top candidate for learning/testing asteroid mining, or are there other types of objects that are more convenient?
I have a couple friends at the EPA who recently hired an electrician to come in and update some things. They got into a big discussion about Energy Star being a load of crap. People who work with this stuff know that Energy Star has been a farce for a long time.
Look at Battlefront 3, though, I have to wonder: Do they THINK they're making a good crossover between flight sim and ease of play? It would capture people from both crowds, casual player and harder-headed fan
Do they think that reducing the semantic details of the game allows a broader storyline that is more accessible more immersive, or something else? ie you fly a starship into an enemy hangar and then get out in order to fight your way through the ship.
I remember making names for EVERY pilot icon in X-Wing to coincide with the names from the movies. It was just amazing to feel like you were really affecting the outcome of a campaign with the Rebellion or Empire. The new Battlefront (nor the old ones) doesn't really feel like that. It feels like I was dropped into the middle of something and I have absolutely no connection to my character or what is going on. It feels cold and detached (a little like George Lucas, frankly).
I agree with the parent.
Maybe I'm just being an old grouch (at 29) but I want capital ship battles. I want squadrons of fighters engaging in battle. We have the technology, why do they refuse to make this kind of stuff and do Lego StarWars instead?
With current MMO technology one would think that a whole host of possibilities would open up. With current single player gamer technology wouldn't it be quite possible to design an immersive simulator to rival God himself?
At the very least an update to their classic flight sims seems like a sure-fire hit.
I went through some of this.
Summary:
First, there was a relationship with someone who I *thought* was nerdy. Basically, she was able to feign enough interest in various subjects, or act like she knew things, when in fact she was really just good at memorizing things and taking tests. Little curiosity, very business-like, and ultimately ended up being pretty messed up in the head. Ruined my head.
Had a relationship with a hot redhead. She was insane, I mean totally nuts. Great arm candy, but she made me miserable.
Met my current girl online. She's wonderful. She's calm in the face of my neuroses and oddities, I reassure her in the face of hers. She allows me to contribute and help her with stuff, she loves to learn (she's helping me learn japanese, for instance, which I know is cliched these days). It's grand. She's not the hottest little mama around, but that actually makes me feel better after putting up with the BS of many "short relationships" and 2 longer relationships in which some girls were OBSESSED with their looks. I love her to death. She's a great blend between nerdy and socially/physically active.
Yes, the sex is fantastic, and so is nearly everything else. Only 2 years in, but after searching for the last 10 years it's finally paid off! If you have someone who is shy and nerdy it might be even better, as the two of you can explore together.
What's the point, other than my gushing about my situation? There seems to be someone out there for everybody. Just keep looking (I found her through online dating, I kid you not) by meeting others. Join clubs, explore things you've always wanted to do. You'll be a happier person, and in that way you will probably attract the kind of people you want to be around anyway, and maybe someone who is very special.
The cliche of the dork glued to his computer is a sad trap. There are other things out there that you'll love, I guarantee it. Just get out there and you'll eventually find that you grow into the kind of person that you love and that someone else probably will too.
btw, I'm no social charmer. I hate that kind of BS. Give me blunt honesty and a real conversation about something. While a few social graces are good, I think that teaching geeks how to be fake will just turn many of them off to what being social is SUPPOSED to be about: Respecting others. On the other hand, I've met geeks that LOVE that kind of schmoozing, which makes me ill, so YMMV.
What are you getting at precisely? I can see a couple of things you might be trying to say:
Are you implying that a personal experience is the only worthwhile one? Do group experiences somehow not count as building up an experience surrounding something?
Is it a problem that when people come together they all have pre-built relationships with something? Does it someone make one's own experience less genuine? I don't want to put words in your mouth, though.
The same could be said of ANYTHING in the world that people come together in any group to enjoy, ever. People find something they like and develop a personal relationship (interest) with it, then they come together to enjoy it. That's what friendships are based on (though perhaps the relationships are formed around ideas or values that each person finds agreable instead of just music, for instance).
Or are you saying that I already went into that concert preconditioned to see it as a moving experience? I posit that I was rather underwhelmed by the people around us, by our seats, and was rather wary of the whole thing once we got there and things got started, so I'm not sure I was totally primed to have some sort of high-minded experience. I think it hit me when around the 3nd song in the concert some kid got up in the middle of the floor of the opera house seats and just started dancing. He finally walked out into the aisle and just went nuts. None of the perfectly dressed ushers stopped him. Soon he had a group around him, then it became the whole front of the stage that was filled, and suddenly the entire floor seemed to get up and start grooving and shaking and dancing. I'd never seen anything like it at any concert.
Maybe it was just one person that was primed to have that kind of experience and it spread to others?
Were there more people who went in with a prec-conceived notion and, being white and stuffy, they only needed a catalyst like a line of dominoes?
I'd like to understand what you're getting at.
Although I agree with you to an extent, I hope you're wrong.
Having been to a few great acts, David Byrne most recently at Chicago's Civic Opera House, it was an almost religious experience when he had an entire formal opera house jumping and shaking and movin' it. I mean it brought to tears to my eyes. It was 100x better than the album, and worth every penny paid.
Now, I understand that the mentality is that it can be had for free, but that seems dangerous, as it deprives the artist of what they really are there for: Perforance. Also, the fidelity is simply not as good as a concert (even lossless) and the human component of things is taken away. In short, it really is inferior, but I understand that technology has trained many people to eschew concert-going.
Speaking of slick, whatever happened to old Sienfeld and Bill?
For heaven's sake mod parent up. Did no one catch the reference?
The way things are goin', they're gonna crucify you!
And how popular was Mozart a generation after he died? Did most people recognize his genius? No. They'd say "Oh that sounds nice!" Modern pop music began with The Beatles, just as Mozart redefined and pushed the boundaries of music theory during his time.
Timeless implies not only mastery of an art, but that music moves anyone from any generation given that they can appreciate it.
Their music is also emotionally timeless. Try listening to Revolver, for instance. If it doesn't move you at all, check your pulse.
Mozart is dying out. How many people do YOU know that would go to a Mozart concert and really appreciate it and be moved by it? It's taught academically in music history, but Amadeus was no more than a fad (and a cad) in his time.
Even up and coming artists cite the Beatles as an influence. They will be timeless. Billy Joel will not be timeless. Sting will not be timeless. Coolio will not be timeless. As someone who disliked the Beatles for 20 years and remained ignorant, but finally listened to their recordings and quickly became a big fan of the fab four, it seems obvious that their music strikes a chord that will resonate for many years to come.
I won't go so far as to say you don't know much about music, but I will say that it may be worth re-examining your views and understanding of music and media history.
I'm sorry, but I have to speak up here.
I have 3 friends who have all gotten starting jobs as police offices in different districts in the last 4 years.
2 of them quit after a few months when it became obvious that the acts they were asked to commit were not even close to being in line with serving the public interest and safety. The third person is seriously questioning his career choice.
I say that without proper oversight and regardless of training, people with too much power often do despicable, selfish things because they can a) Get away with it and b) the justification for these acts comes from having that power in the first place.
just my 2 cents
Here Here!
I have to run for the holidays, but here's my small opinion:
We have so much compliance in our 2 person financial planning business (I know we're talking about silicon valley) that it is OUT OF CONTROL. Either you have to work yourself into the ground to do a good job AND file all necessary compliance, or just be lax about actually doing a good job for clients in order to comply and make sure things look nicey-nice. That is, unless you're a big office with multiple staff and planners, which really just turns into sales anyway rather than job well done.
I KNOW we're talking about Silicon Valley, but I'm telling you it's happening all over. We are hobbling all sorts of industries with compliance issues at a time when we should streamline things. Yes, I know there's been fraud and we must protect workers' rights. I don't know how to deal with that part of the equation. It's going to happen no matter what as the big boys always seem to get a pass. Meanwhile the extra compliance and regulation is KILLING small businesses (who are actually trying to get the job done) like us.
SOrry to be a bit off topic, but I hope this brings a little perspective to the discussion.
Happy Holidays everybody!
Perhaps what the Long Tail Theory postulates is that people will somehow stop having a herd mentality once their experiences can be tailored on a whim. However, given that man is a social animal, I don't know whether (or how much) this change will occur.
Personal observation has been that people simply don't have the time these days to dig deeper. Pardon my acting a bit ignorant, but just as many people do not examine their own actions and lives, so too do they not examine many of the things they consume. People are not wired to "dig deeper" for more things they like, they are wired to extract pleasure from entertainment right now. Even people I know who are into obscure things do not seem to dig deeper (like bad movies, for instance).
It takes an intrusive event in someone's life to open them up to new ideas, and people don't like change, even when it obviously makes sense in scientific black and white. I see it in finance every day (when you say "Sir, if you do X you can save yourself thousands of dollars a year in taxes (or whatever)" and Mr. Sir simply won't do it. It's infuriating!) and it seems to occur in hobbies and interests as well. It's something I've been witnessing in myself and others for a long time.
"Micro"soft.
I'll be here all weekend, folks!
Does anybody else think that eventually we might see some sort of tiny "stylus pad" that fits round the end of a finger? It could be a little white dot, so we can see where we're "clicking", there-by further decreasing fat finger syndrome.
I read it precisely that way, and I would mod you up if I still had the points.
Bravo, sir!
On a slightly related note: I sure hope this means they can bring some things to light that allow us to banish 90% of the people in this administration to some dark continenet where they can't harm anyone ever again.
I don't know exactly, but I suspect that it's accompanied by something approximating "Bombs away!"
Does anyone else get a sinking feeling that Keanu Reeves really could spell the death of the human race?
First off, I feel your post veers somewhat from the original intent of the parent. The parent states that we should naturally let things happen, which includes letting an asteroid destroy earth, so that other, smarter species can arise. I simply added to that same part of the Venn diagram the notion that we have also arisen naturally and from that have a natural instinct for survival through perception of dangers (in this case an asteroid that could obliterate earth) and we have naturally evolved the ability to deal with the threats we perceive.
So, if we're going to talk about letting things happen naturally, all that has arisen from mankind is perfectly natural. Are those actions best for us as a species is another question completely, but the idea that we should somehow let our species be destroyed simply on the pretense that it is natural seems less than helpful, though I could be missing something (I'm not the smartest cookie in teh shed, as the kids say)
Now, if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that humanity can only do harm to the universe (another very abstract and difficult concept to get a conversation around) then I will bow to that and conceed that humanity ought to be destroyed.
Basically, it seems like we ought to look at the survival of our species as good, and the opposite as bad. How we do it can be (is?)a moral question, but any true argument against the survival of mankind over the long term is something that needs much more rigorous argument than simply "we kill each other and we're stupid so we should all die." If you feel that way, back it up with something. Also keep in mind you're on a science and technology site. Science and technology look to the future and dream of a better tomorrow where everyone's lives are better for the things we think of and create. It is a solid form of that endless spring many like to call "hope".
Of course there's Buddhist idea that neither good or bad exists, and we ought to just let things happen. That colors the argument differently perhaps, but we can leave that for another time.
Back in college I did an AI project with a guy named Jeff. We did a Freecell program that used both fitness and searching to come up with a solution to nearly every Freecell setup imaginable. (If you're reading this Jeff, I wish I'd done more of the programming. Sorry, I owe you one)
Could discreet situations, rather than individual actions, be stored and executed (or genetically developed) ahead of time? Even with a stripped down version of the game to calculate different outcomes, it seems like making "blocks" of actions might be more useful. It might even allow for more time to compute a course of action.
Making the response semi-random based, again, on some sort of fitness test could help change things up and narrow things down.
Oh, one other idea: Depending on the game, why not use the idea of macro -> micro?
For instance, in a first person shooter, as soon as the computer sees the player, whatever information it gathers it can act on in broad strokes. Perhaps they see each other from across the board. The computer can take a number of actions based on that information, and as more information is gathered it can narrow down the best way to deal with the human player. Assessing the battlefield before diving into the fray. If the computer acts incorrectly on the incomplete information, then like a human player it may not be well prepared.
Just some ideas, i wrote a much better post earlier and it got erred out. I'm looking forward to what others have to say.
Back in college I worked with a guy, Jeff, on an AI project. We were to play the game Freecell through to its finish.
(if you're reading this, jeff, I'm still sorry I didn't do more coding on that and I owe you one)
While I can understand the difficulties in doing a brute force search, and that a simplified "version" of the game could be helpful, OR even that parsed "states" or "instances" of situations in the game could be broken down and analyzed, wouldn't a simpler way be to use a fitness test on various actions? No, no... I lose points for not reading the article, perhaps.
We used a combination of fitness and searching to determine a way to win a Freecell setup. Admittedly this is VERY simplified, and done in a sort of static system as opposed to a (usually) dynamic one in games.
If there is less memory, the obvious answer seems to be to use a system to determine better ways of doing things. Rather than simplifying the game, couldn't the AI have a library of responses designed to fit certain situational profiles, then act in a (perhaps semi-random) manner that fits ? Perhaps the responses could be genetically determined, even.
Also, this use of situations versus individual actions could help lengthen the time the AI has to come up with a response.
Just some thoughts, though I'm sure others more experienced than me have these on the brain. I'm looking forward to the responses on this topic.
It is also a natural occurrence that we are here, able to perceive a threat to our species, and eliminate that threat.
As a financial planner it is nice to hear about people who are in good financial health. However...
You know what? I know a lot more people who are deeply in debt due to medical issues, economic misfortune (being screwed over), and education burdens than I do who just binged on stuff. If you're going to get high and mighty about your pristine fiscal record, perhaps you haven't had the fortune of living in the real world yet where things go wrong while burdened with large responsibilities such as a home (not a condo), family and education.
Go ahead, mod me a troll, but even as someone who tries to get people to be more fiscally responsible, I am dead sick of people wagging it around when this issue comes up. We KNOW you're doing fine, enough already. Maybe you ought to get out and help those who have had less luck than yourself instead of sitting on a paper throne. If more people did that and fostered a greater sense of community instead of a holier-than-thou attitude, there might not be such a large crisis.