Artificial Intelligence

Scott wrote:
>On AI programs:
>}I assert it's more a
>}matter of hardware than software at this point.  We can do anything,
>}given enough code.  :=)

>That's my guess, but then again, I'm strictly a computer-0 type myself.

 Seeing as I work at an AI institute I have to stick my nose in here.
We really have quite a long way to go before we get "real" AI. We still
haven't figured out the correct formalisms for generic problem solving
and there is still plenty of dispute as to what techniques we should be
using.

 With better hardware we can, of course, do some good stuff, but we
really need a lot more work done on the AI theory. There are some fairly
impressive descendants of Eliza out there at the moment which can hold
conversations in a limited domain, but they can't be thought of in any
way as intelligent.

 The other area which, until more recently, has not received a lot of
attention is low-level behaviour. Any autonomous artificial being has
to be able to react rapidly to its environment (ie if our robot has
decided to cross a road, we would like it to notice the oncoming car and
avoid it). At our current level of technology we can build stupid
cockroaches which can feel walls and sense heat.

>But, also, AI is *supposed* to be TL 17.  So will it REALLY take 9 tech
>levels from now to get a true AI?  I doubt it.

It may take until TL 17 to get full artificial intelligent life (ie
can self-replicate, is autonomous, and has an intelligence as rich
as ours), but real AI should come in before then in non-autonomous
computer form. In recent years I've thought that Traveller understates
the level of computer power at higher tech levels, but then (as Catie Helm
mentioned) we are playing Traveller, not Cyberpunk aren't we ?

Rupert
- --
Rupert G. Goldie, Research Scientist                [email removed]
Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute
Life's a bitch and then you die.