13 ms·
> Well, why should it? Because what is trumpeted as a breakthrough may in fact be so narrow in scope that it may not even be possible to use it in a flight com
by linschn 10y ago
> Well, why should it?
Because what is trumpeted as a breakthrough may in fact be so narrow in scope that it may not even be possible to use it in a flight combat video game without a lot of work, let alone any real life environment.
It is absolutely, very closely tied to the mathematical model of aerial combat that they devised and can not easily be made to accommodate new insights, or new challenges.
- jdmichal 10y ago> Because what is trumpeted as a breakthrough may in fact be so narrow in scope that it may not even be possible to use it in a flight combat video game without a lot of work, let alone any real life environment. What? They were quite literally running the AI in a simulator -- ie, a very expensive video game. The only thing that might not scale is the computational power necessary to execute.
- linschn 10y agoSorry, I was unclear, I meant in /another/ video game. They are strongly tied with their particular modelling of the problem.
- jdmichal 10y agoI suppose it depends on the granularity of the rules. Deciding what to do is separate from how to do it. If those are tied together within the rule system, then yes I agree, the rules would need to be tweaked for every new model. But if the rules only define the goal of the system, and flight mechanics are handled by, say, a goal-based feedback mechanism, then it should work fine in any model.
- Paul-ish 10y agoAdditionally, doesn't this mean that the code is very sensitive. If the opponent were to get their hands on the code it would be easy to predict what these things are going to do.