"the computer is only capable of doing what a human programs it to."
I'm a Computer Science major currently taking an Artificial Intelligence course at Ga Tech. I am by no means an expert, but from what I have learned so far the ultimate goal of AI is to program programs that can deal with situations that they are not specifically programmed to deal with. AI isn't as simple as having one huge if/else if statement block. Or I should say, GOOD AI isn't about that. In my class we are currently learning "old" stuff, and all of that simply uses the computer's speed to make up for their lack of ability to produce algorithms anywhere near as good as whatever is going on inside a human's head, or even in some cases a fruit fly's head. Even a game as apparently simple as Chess (when compared to real life situations) has an enormous amount of possibilities, and while lots of computing power can search through those well enough to produce results like Deep Blue produced, that approach quickly becomes impractical with more complicated situations.
The reason that Deep Junior is such a big deal is that it is using a lot less computing power than Deep Blue, which means it is a step in the direction of lessening AI's dependence on raw computing speed. "So what, it's chess" you say. Well, going to the moon in and of itself was rather pointless too, but all kinds of spin offs were produced which made the project worthwhile. That is the point that Kasparov is trying to make. It isn't beating Kasparov in chess that is so important, it is what we learn in getting there. The hope is that what we learn will be applicable to more meaningful situations.
I hear this "nature" arguement all the time and to be honest it really isn't very convincing. I mean basically your arguement is, "This is the way things are, so this is how they should be". Think of all the things that you enjoy, of all the ways your life has been improved, made more enjoyable, and LONGER because people weren't content with the way things are. For better or worse humanity will never be content with the way things are and will always strive to make every aspect of their lives, including the lengths of those lives, better. I think it is quite obvious that we are either going to wipe ourselves out or live forever to spread amung the stars. Anyone sitting around whinning about it will just be pushed to the side, just as people like them have always been pushed to the side. At the vert least we will outlive you.
OK a few things. First of all, someone said "higher fps screw up the physics in Quake 3". That is incorrect. People simply gained a slight advantage in how high they could jump with higher FPS, because their trajectory curve was smoother (I assume id was checking every X number of frames, and so this is why it happened).
The second thing I'd like to debunk is the notion that John C would ever cap a game at 30 FPS. It makes just about as much sense as it sounds. Also I am sure the John C enjoys having the influential position he has concerning how video card technology develops. If John C didn't care about FPS, why did he give the world its first glimpse of Doom 3 at a press conference designed to show off the Geforce 3?
Thirdly, I would caution people against labeling any new engine revolutionary. Processing power simply doesn't proceed at a pace to allow "revolutionary" changes in engines. Stencil shadows have been around for a long time(idea first appeared in 1977), it is just that John C is using them to replace lightmaps. Bumpmapping was used because the stencil shadows increased the geometry of the scene and the polygon count needed to be kept down. Bumpmaps help make this less evident. I agree that it's a lot more of a change than between Q1, Q2, and Q3, but it isn't anything like movie style rendering.
Other than that, I agree that you can never have enough speed:) On the other hand, I might not mind Moore's law ending 10 years from now. As a programmer I'd like to see more thought put into using what we have more efficiently. Considering the relative immaturity of computers, I am sure there are a lot of great ideas that we simply haven't had the need to discover yet.
Slashdot Mirror
"the computer is only capable of doing what a human programs it to." I'm a Computer Science major currently taking an Artificial Intelligence course at Ga Tech. I am by no means an expert, but from what I have learned so far the ultimate goal of AI is to program programs that can deal with situations that they are not specifically programmed to deal with. AI isn't as simple as having one huge if/else if statement block. Or I should say, GOOD AI isn't about that. In my class we are currently learning "old" stuff, and all of that simply uses the computer's speed to make up for their lack of ability to produce algorithms anywhere near as good as whatever is going on inside a human's head, or even in some cases a fruit fly's head. Even a game as apparently simple as Chess (when compared to real life situations) has an enormous amount of possibilities, and while lots of computing power can search through those well enough to produce results like Deep Blue produced, that approach quickly becomes impractical with more complicated situations. The reason that Deep Junior is such a big deal is that it is using a lot less computing power than Deep Blue, which means it is a step in the direction of lessening AI's dependence on raw computing speed. "So what, it's chess" you say. Well, going to the moon in and of itself was rather pointless too, but all kinds of spin offs were produced which made the project worthwhile. That is the point that Kasparov is trying to make. It isn't beating Kasparov in chess that is so important, it is what we learn in getting there. The hope is that what we learn will be applicable to more meaningful situations.
I hear this "nature" arguement all the time and to be honest it really isn't very convincing. I mean basically your arguement is, "This is the way things are, so this is how they should be". Think of all the things that you enjoy, of all the ways your life has been improved, made more enjoyable, and LONGER because people weren't content with the way things are. For better or worse humanity will never be content with the way things are and will always strive to make every aspect of their lives, including the lengths of those lives, better. I think it is quite obvious that we are either going to wipe ourselves out or live forever to spread amung the stars. Anyone sitting around whinning about it will just be pushed to the side, just as people like them have always been pushed to the side. At the vert least we will outlive you.
Someone should patent the golf club and then maybe the goverment would give this some attention.
Just doesn't sound right when it isn't Duke saying it.
So I guess if you see a car parked outside of your building on those pathetic little spare tires they put in cars you should run the other way =P
OK a few things. First of all, someone said "higher fps screw up the physics in Quake 3". That is incorrect. People simply gained a slight advantage in how high they could jump with higher FPS, because their trajectory curve was smoother (I assume id was checking every X number of frames, and so this is why it happened). The second thing I'd like to debunk is the notion that John C would ever cap a game at 30 FPS. It makes just about as much sense as it sounds. Also I am sure the John C enjoys having the influential position he has concerning how video card technology develops. If John C didn't care about FPS, why did he give the world its first glimpse of Doom 3 at a press conference designed to show off the Geforce 3? Thirdly, I would caution people against labeling any new engine revolutionary. Processing power simply doesn't proceed at a pace to allow "revolutionary" changes in engines. Stencil shadows have been around for a long time(idea first appeared in 1977), it is just that John C is using them to replace lightmaps. Bumpmapping was used because the stencil shadows increased the geometry of the scene and the polygon count needed to be kept down. Bumpmaps help make this less evident. I agree that it's a lot more of a change than between Q1, Q2, and Q3, but it isn't anything like movie style rendering. Other than that, I agree that you can never have enough speed :) On the other hand, I might not mind Moore's law ending 10 years from now. As a programmer I'd like to see more thought put into using what we have more efficiently. Considering the relative immaturity of computers, I am sure there are a lot of great ideas that we simply haven't had the need to discover yet.