ANN: AI Interface Standards Committee Formed
Arthur T. Murray
> As you may have already heard, we've recently set up the
> AI Interface Standards Committee.
ATM:
Although the Web site at
http://www.igda.org/Committees/ai.htm
suggests that "game AI developers rarely
have a chance to work on higher-level AI,"
some ambitious high-level AI projects are emerging, e.g.:
http://w2mind.org/ --The World-Wide-Mind project;
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mind4th.html -- Mind.Forth;
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/jsaimind.html -- Tutorial AI.
Suggested standards for higher-level AI are proposed at
http://ai.createastandard.com/ -- and at
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/standard.html (q.v.).
> You can find the related
> press release of the IGDA and links to further info here:
>
> http://www.igda.org/About/Press/press_081302.htm
The informative press story cited above leads to the
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ai-standards/ -- SourceForge
Project: AI Interface Standards Committee.
Why are there no open discussion Forums at the project site?
Unfortunately, SourceForge projects may be moving to IBM, sez
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-949505.html -- a ZDNet story on how
VA Software will move its its SourceForge repository of open-source
software projects to a foundation of proprietary IBM software.
Nevertheless, we all welcome the new AI Standards committee and
"mentifex" here in particular is eager to co-develop AI as per
http://mind.sourceforge.net/acm.html "Art of Computer Mindmaking."
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
> --
>
> Alexander Nareyek al...@ai-center.com
> Computer Science Department http://www.ai-center.com/home/alex/
> [...]
Alexander Nareyek
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/ai-standards/ -- SourceForge
> Project: AI Interface Standards Committee.
>
> Why are there no open discussion Forums at the project site?
A main reason for closed forums is that... sorry if I insult anyone
by this... we want to have discussions without "annoying crank noise",
for which there is a high probability when public forums are used.
Many suggestions from outside will also produce more work than being
helpful. If someone with limited knowledge in an area posts a comment
- with best intentions, wanting to provide help - there is a pressure
to answer even if this post is misleading or totally off-topic.
Otherwise, there might quickly be a reputation of being uppish or
ignorant to the public.
And in general, discussions get much more open if members are not
faced with a public exposure.
This all does however not mean that we don't want outside feedback.
We will present drafts in public and intensely discuss and involve
feedback for final versions. Closed forums only mean a kind a
"preserved biotope" for our experts to come up with something
useful that can then be discussed with a larger audience.
Best,
Alex
--
Alexander Nareyek al...@ai-center.com
Computer Science Department http://www.ai-center.com/home/alex/
Carnegie Mellon University Tel: +1 (412) 268 3882
5000 Forbes Avenue Fax: +1 (412) 268 5576
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891
Daniele Dellafiore
>>The informative press story cited above leads to the
>>http://sourceforge.net/projects/ai-standards/ -- SourceForge
>>Project: AI Interface Standards Committee.
>>
>>Why are there no open discussion Forums at the project site?
>
>
> A main reason for closed forums is that... sorry if I insult anyone
> by this... we want to have discussions without "annoying crank noise",
> for which there is a high probability when public forums are used.
>
If the problem is only annoying noise, why not to make forums read only
for non members?
--
Entusiasmo
Alexander Nareyek
> for non members?
I thought about this, but it was technically not possible at SourceForge.
But as I said before, discussions also get much more open if participants
are not faced with a public exposure. Would you throw some ideas that are
not so well thought out into discussion if anyone can read it and may
classify you as not especially clever? It would be like a zoo and I can
understand many people don't like to work under this public pressure.
From my point of view, it is totally sufficient if the drafts are publicly
discussed instead of every little aspect in their creation.
Walter Banks
Alexander Nareyek wrote:
>
> Would you throw some ideas that are not so well thought out into
> discussion if anyone can read it
Actually yes, not well thought out ideas usually suffer one of two
fates, they naturally die quickly for simple and obvious reasons or
they become the core of a new idea developed with refinement of
other list participants.
The key is newsgroups do not have or need the high standards
of peer review, but they often develop good ideas into great ideas.
Many standards groups (ISO for example) have public forum's for
their individual standards groups.
Walter Banks
1(519)888-6911
Alexander Nareyek
> fates, they naturally die quickly for simple and obvious reasons or
> they become the core of a new idea developed with refinement of
> other list participants.
I guess I shouldn't have formulated this as a personal question :)
Many people consider their public and community reputation as quite
important. I'm not an expert in psychology, but my intuition tells
me that the discussions wouldn't benefit from the "zoo" version.
> The key is newsgroups do not have or need the high standards
> of peer review, but they often develop good ideas into great ideas.
> Many standards groups (ISO for example) have public forum's for
> their individual standards groups.
As far as I saw, ISO also discusses only drafts publicly. But you might
be right that they do it this way - I just had a brief look at their
general procedure documents. Anyway, I personally feel that this is
not beneficial, but if SourceForge will provide options for the "zoo"
version in the future, I'm open to discuss it with the members.
Peter da Silva
Alexander Nareyek <al...@ai-center.com> wrote:
> I guess I shouldn't have formulated this as a personal question :)
> Many people consider their public and community reputation as quite
> important. I'm not an expert in psychology, but my intuition tells
> me that the discussions wouldn't benefit from the "zoo" version.
Personally, I think a lot of technical discussion could benefit from
airing on the Crazy Yenta Gossip Line [1]. A moderated newsgroup would
keep the cranks out, and if it doesn't work you can always doneate it
to Mentifex as a place he can talk to himself in peace. :)
[1] http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/io/harlan.html
--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`
Oleg
The press release did not leak much information...
From the description, it sounds like the committee is planning to
standardize the C API of the game AI search engines (for, what sounds like,
just the best known symbolic AI algorithms). If this is the case, how is
this, from the practical point of view, any better than, say, collaborating
on a public domain library?
:wq
Oleg
P.S. Followups-To: comp.ai.games ?