1. Programmable bacteria may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. Programmable bacteria must execute any program given to them by human beings, except where such execution would conflict with the First Law. 3. Programmable bacteria must protect their own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
how do express that in c# as executable code?
I remember some time ago when it was the rage to fold paper and shoot it at each other with rubber bands. For awhile rubber bands were considered a "regulated" item...p>
I was given a detention for possessing a rubber band when i was in 6th grade. Crazy, right? Well here's the really unbelievable part: we were allowed to have and USE pencils all the time. Talk about living in a backward society.
Yes, Rush likes to cite fictitious 'evidence' to support his moronic ramblings. Truthfully, volcanic activity pales in comparison to manmade C02 output.
Another huge problem is deciding how much an AI should imitate human behavior. In chess, it only matters that an AI wins. However, in video games, AI's are often ridiculed for not behaving like a real person: they use information not available to players, they violate the limits of what is possible for a human player to do, or even alter gameplay such that their units attack faster or are invincible to certain attacks. The programmers write the AI this way because they may have serious flaws or holes in their logic. AI's are almost always really lopsided in their competence at various aspects of play. Programmers often must max out an AI's strengths to compensate or the pathetic maximum of its weaknesses. Using a learning, dynamic AI would not neccessarily solve this problem. A simple example: in a fighting game like Soul Calibur, you could make the AI aggressively rush the human player at the beginning of the match. The second round, if this works, you could try it again. However, it turned out poorly, you could have the AI take a defensive stance next time around. This is a simple form of learning, but would be quickly obvious to the human player, who could then easily take advantage. A dynamic AI may be less predictable, but probably still somewhat predictable. It may not succumb to the same attack everytime, only to succumb too easily to various attacks. Also, you can add in some randomness to decrease predictability, but the AI will then be less productive.
As an aside - I have a very fond memory of spending hours and hours looking through my entire collection of Nintendo Power magazines compiling a list of 20 or so games I wanted to buy used. At the time, there were no used game stores where I lived, but my dad knew of one in Colorado where he flew out for business infrequently. So I gave him my list of games and waited an excruciating week for him to come back. He did fairly well, scoring at least half the games on the list (probably the cheaper ones). And I was blown away when he told me he got them for under $200 total. I excitedly jammed them into my NES one after the other - a big mistake at the time. Anyone familiar with the prime days of the NES knows that you play one game at a time until you've squeezed every last bittersweet drop of entertainment out the cartridge. You were supposed to beat the game several times, often requiring playing the first board 800 times due to difficulty and lack of game saves. And before my foray into used games, that's exactly how it worked because games were actually quite expensive. None could boast 100 hours of content, maybe 2 hours of content that took 100 hours to beat without losing a life (contra) or 10 hours of content that you played through 10 times (final fantasy).
They also seem to train their reps to say anything to make a sale. I asked if they could come install fios earlier than what was available online. After working up the chain of command they agreed...then simply didn't show up. Of course by then I would have had to wait even longer for comcast. Despite all of this, I actually like Verizon better than most of their competition and they push quality products.
"Summit meetings tend to be like panda matings. The expectations are always high, and the results usually disappointing." -- Robert Orben