<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_03_0512254</id>
	<title>Emergent AI In an Indie RTS Game</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244056680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.arcengames.com/" rel="nofollow">x4000</a> writes <i>"My recent RTS game uses a new style of AI that <a href="http://christophermpark.blogspot.com/2009/06/designing-emergent-ai-part-1.html">hybridizes rules-based AI with emergent AI logic</a>. As a disclaimer, I'm really not an AI programmer at all &mdash; my background is in databases, financial modeling, etc. But it just so happens that database experience, which often involved distilling data points from multiple sources and then combining them into suggested decisions for executives, also makes a great foundation for certain styles of AI. The approach I came up with leans heavily on my database background, and what concepts I am familiar with from reading a bit about AI theory (emergent behavior, fuzzy logic, etc).  The results are startlingly good. Total development time on the AI was less than 3 months, and its use of tactics is some of the best in the RTS genre. I'm very open to talking about anything and everything to do with the design I used, as I think it's a viable new approach to AI to explore in games, and I'd like to see other developers potentially carry it even further."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>x4000 writes " My recent RTS game uses a new style of AI that hybridizes rules-based AI with emergent AI logic .
As a disclaimer , I 'm really not an AI programmer at all    my background is in databases , financial modeling , etc .
But it just so happens that database experience , which often involved distilling data points from multiple sources and then combining them into suggested decisions for executives , also makes a great foundation for certain styles of AI .
The approach I came up with leans heavily on my database background , and what concepts I am familiar with from reading a bit about AI theory ( emergent behavior , fuzzy logic , etc ) .
The results are startlingly good .
Total development time on the AI was less than 3 months , and its use of tactics is some of the best in the RTS genre .
I 'm very open to talking about anything and everything to do with the design I used , as I think it 's a viable new approach to AI to explore in games , and I 'd like to see other developers potentially carry it even further .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>x4000 writes "My recent RTS game uses a new style of AI that hybridizes rules-based AI with emergent AI logic.
As a disclaimer, I'm really not an AI programmer at all — my background is in databases, financial modeling, etc.
But it just so happens that database experience, which often involved distilling data points from multiple sources and then combining them into suggested decisions for executives, also makes a great foundation for certain styles of AI.
The approach I came up with leans heavily on my database background, and what concepts I am familiar with from reading a bit about AI theory (emergent behavior, fuzzy logic, etc).
The results are startlingly good.
Total development time on the AI was less than 3 months, and its use of tactics is some of the best in the RTS genre.
I'm very open to talking about anything and everything to do with the design I used, as I think it's a viable new approach to AI to explore in games, and I'd like to see other developers potentially carry it even further.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193119</id>
	<title>Re:Summary useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244022180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Afaik the first Z (back in 1995?) did a similar thing, by having the AI "scroll" the screen itself and not seeing anything else. Also the robots had different smartness levels, so arguably you could also call that unit-level. Nice, only 14yrs late. (disclaimer: no, of course I didn't RTA)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Afaik the first Z ( back in 1995 ?
) did a similar thing , by having the AI " scroll " the screen itself and not seeing anything else .
Also the robots had different smartness levels , so arguably you could also call that unit-level .
Nice , only 14yrs late .
( disclaimer : no , of course I did n't RTA )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Afaik the first Z (back in 1995?
) did a similar thing, by having the AI "scroll" the screen itself and not seeing anything else.
Also the robots had different smartness levels, so arguably you could also call that unit-level.
Nice, only 14yrs late.
(disclaimer: no, of course I didn't RTA)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193629</id>
	<title>The best AI in the game</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1244029740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my experience I'd award the best AI to Civilization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my experience I 'd award the best AI to Civilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my experience I'd award the best AI to Civilization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192769</id>
	<title>Re:Article summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>s/techy/tech<b>ish</b>/</p><p>Worth mentioning the title of the post:</p><p>"Designing Emergent AI, Part 1: An Introduction"</p><p>It is very light on implementation details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>s/techy/techish/Worth mentioning the title of the post : " Designing Emergent AI , Part 1 : An Introduction " It is very light on implementation details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/techy/techish/Worth mentioning the title of the post:"Designing Emergent AI, Part 1: An Introduction"It is very light on implementation details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28200301</id>
	<title>Re:"Truer" AI suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244019900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facing AI with AI using NN's usually ends up in very odd and unrealistic situations. Since you're putting something unintelligent against something unintelligent, they'll end up making unintelligent scenarios and equally unintelligent solutions for those gibberish scenarios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facing AI with AI using NN 's usually ends up in very odd and unrealistic situations .
Since you 're putting something unintelligent against something unintelligent , they 'll end up making unintelligent scenarios and equally unintelligent solutions for those gibberish scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facing AI with AI using NN's usually ends up in very odd and unrealistic situations.
Since you're putting something unintelligent against something unintelligent, they'll end up making unintelligent scenarios and equally unintelligent solutions for those gibberish scenarios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193469</id>
	<title>Master of Orion</title>
	<author>Johnno74</author>
	<datestamp>1244027040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have yet to see anything that beats Master of Orion's AI</p><p>But to be fair I've played very few strategy games in the last 10 years, so shoot me down if I'm talking out my arse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In MOO the AI would recognise your tactics, and make moves specifically to counter them.  You couldn't keep using a winning strategy.</p><p>A good tactic early in the game was to build a large number (thousands) of tiny cheap ships loaded to the brim with MIRV missiles which would overwhelm the defences of the far larger, well equipped and expensive enemy ships.</p><p>The AI would then counter by building a large number of small defensive ships, and equipping ships with ECM units, displacement devices etc which made missiles ineffective.</p><p>Man that game was good.  Perfect blend of simple gameplay and deep strategy.  I've never played anything else as good, modern 4x space games all seem to be about micromanagement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see anything that beats Master of Orion 's AIBut to be fair I 've played very few strategy games in the last 10 years , so shoot me down if I 'm talking out my arse : ) In MOO the AI would recognise your tactics , and make moves specifically to counter them .
You could n't keep using a winning strategy.A good tactic early in the game was to build a large number ( thousands ) of tiny cheap ships loaded to the brim with MIRV missiles which would overwhelm the defences of the far larger , well equipped and expensive enemy ships.The AI would then counter by building a large number of small defensive ships , and equipping ships with ECM units , displacement devices etc which made missiles ineffective.Man that game was good .
Perfect blend of simple gameplay and deep strategy .
I 've never played anything else as good , modern 4x space games all seem to be about micromanagement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see anything that beats Master of Orion's AIBut to be fair I've played very few strategy games in the last 10 years, so shoot me down if I'm talking out my arse :)In MOO the AI would recognise your tactics, and make moves specifically to counter them.
You couldn't keep using a winning strategy.A good tactic early in the game was to build a large number (thousands) of tiny cheap ships loaded to the brim with MIRV missiles which would overwhelm the defences of the far larger, well equipped and expensive enemy ships.The AI would then counter by building a large number of small defensive ships, and equipping ships with ECM units, displacement devices etc which made missiles ineffective.Man that game was good.
Perfect blend of simple gameplay and deep strategy.
I've never played anything else as good, modern 4x space games all seem to be about micromanagement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194027</id>
	<title>Re:Summary useless</title>
	<author>x4000</author>
	<datestamp>1244034780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite valid -- intelligent agents are not a new idea (I'm the dev from the article).  However, the vast majority of RTS games are still using decision trees, I guess because the prevailing wisdom is that such is needed because of the complexity of RTS play.  Is it so surprising that industry lags behind academia?

But, even my approach is not purely an intelligent agent approach, but rather combines in a bit of global logic as well (for reinforcements, choosing global attack targets, etc).  I think that a hybridized sort of approach is really needed for RTS games, since they do have so many levels at once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite valid -- intelligent agents are not a new idea ( I 'm the dev from the article ) .
However , the vast majority of RTS games are still using decision trees , I guess because the prevailing wisdom is that such is needed because of the complexity of RTS play .
Is it so surprising that industry lags behind academia ?
But , even my approach is not purely an intelligent agent approach , but rather combines in a bit of global logic as well ( for reinforcements , choosing global attack targets , etc ) .
I think that a hybridized sort of approach is really needed for RTS games , since they do have so many levels at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite valid -- intelligent agents are not a new idea (I'm the dev from the article).
However, the vast majority of RTS games are still using decision trees, I guess because the prevailing wisdom is that such is needed because of the complexity of RTS play.
Is it so surprising that industry lags behind academia?
But, even my approach is not purely an intelligent agent approach, but rather combines in a bit of global logic as well (for reinforcements, choosing global attack targets, etc).
I think that a hybridized sort of approach is really needed for RTS games, since they do have so many levels at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195065</id>
	<title>Re:Summary useless</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244040840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that in an RTS, you play as the "almighty all-seeing controller". If the computer AI can make decisions at a lower level, it's:<br>1) Not emulating playing another human (not ideal)<br>2) Keeping track of so much more than a human player can</p><p>Like when you're playing Starcraft on the hardest difficulty, and the AI could use every unit's special power in the same instant-- I always yelled "cheater!" since a human couldn't possibly activate a half dozen different special powers on twenty different units in a single frame of animation.</p><p>If it looks like a cheat, I'd call that lousy AI.</p><p>An ideal AI would play on the same terms as the human player: it would control units the same way, have similar reaction times, and the same knowledge as the human player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that in an RTS , you play as the " almighty all-seeing controller " .
If the computer AI can make decisions at a lower level , it 's : 1 ) Not emulating playing another human ( not ideal ) 2 ) Keeping track of so much more than a human player canLike when you 're playing Starcraft on the hardest difficulty , and the AI could use every unit 's special power in the same instant-- I always yelled " cheater !
" since a human could n't possibly activate a half dozen different special powers on twenty different units in a single frame of animation.If it looks like a cheat , I 'd call that lousy AI.An ideal AI would play on the same terms as the human player : it would control units the same way , have similar reaction times , and the same knowledge as the human player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that in an RTS, you play as the "almighty all-seeing controller".
If the computer AI can make decisions at a lower level, it's:1) Not emulating playing another human (not ideal)2) Keeping track of so much more than a human player canLike when you're playing Starcraft on the hardest difficulty, and the AI could use every unit's special power in the same instant-- I always yelled "cheater!
" since a human couldn't possibly activate a half dozen different special powers on twenty different units in a single frame of animation.If it looks like a cheat, I'd call that lousy AI.An ideal AI would play on the same terms as the human player: it would control units the same way, have similar reaction times, and the same knowledge as the human player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192795</id>
	<title>Re:Article summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244061600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but you see thats good, now maybe someone will crack this game now so i can download it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but you see thats good , now maybe someone will crack this game now so i can download it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but you see thats good, now maybe someone will crack this game now so i can download it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193631</id>
	<title>Re:Like to see....</title>
	<author>daeglin</author>
	<datestamp>1244029740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're serious about this, then release it under a Free software license.</p></div><p>I do not necessarily need the source code, but a technical description of the algorithms would be nice. I read most of TFA and it is quite shallow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're serious about this , then release it under a Free software license.I do not necessarily need the source code , but a technical description of the algorithms would be nice .
I read most of TFA and it is quite shallow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're serious about this, then release it under a Free software license.I do not necessarily need the source code, but a technical description of the algorithms would be nice.
I read most of TFA and it is quite shallow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194003</id>
	<title>Re:Add some flaws.</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1244034540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ever since I wrote my first connect 4 game in the 80s - and was totally thrashed by it, I never beat it - its been clear to me that the trick is to degrade a computer player in most circumstances to the level that it appears to have human flaws and play in a more human fashion.</p></div><p>Only in simple, full information games. In complex strategy games, particularly turn-based ones, nobody has been able to design AI that can stand up to a good human player in a fair fight.</p><p>Computers are really good at calculation and at doing lots of simple things fast, but they're absolutely awful when it comes to strategic thinking, which is why they're good at full-information games with a limited number of options per move (connect four, chess), and RTS games that are more about fast mouse control than about strategy, but they're crap at your average wargame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since I wrote my first connect 4 game in the 80s - and was totally thrashed by it , I never beat it - its been clear to me that the trick is to degrade a computer player in most circumstances to the level that it appears to have human flaws and play in a more human fashion.Only in simple , full information games .
In complex strategy games , particularly turn-based ones , nobody has been able to design AI that can stand up to a good human player in a fair fight.Computers are really good at calculation and at doing lots of simple things fast , but they 're absolutely awful when it comes to strategic thinking , which is why they 're good at full-information games with a limited number of options per move ( connect four , chess ) , and RTS games that are more about fast mouse control than about strategy , but they 're crap at your average wargame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since I wrote my first connect 4 game in the 80s - and was totally thrashed by it, I never beat it - its been clear to me that the trick is to degrade a computer player in most circumstances to the level that it appears to have human flaws and play in a more human fashion.Only in simple, full information games.
In complex strategy games, particularly turn-based ones, nobody has been able to design AI that can stand up to a good human player in a fair fight.Computers are really good at calculation and at doing lots of simple things fast, but they're absolutely awful when it comes to strategic thinking, which is why they're good at full-information games with a limited number of options per move (connect four, chess), and RTS games that are more about fast mouse control than about strategy, but they're crap at your average wargame.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195475</id>
	<title>Re:AI is pattern matching.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244042700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Artificial neural networks do pattern matching.  The human brain is much more complex and intricate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Artificial neural networks do pattern matching .
The human brain is much more complex and intricate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artificial neural networks do pattern matching.
The human brain is much more complex and intricate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973</id>
	<title>"Truer" AI suggestion</title>
	<author>thepotoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This looks like a similar approach to one I have been thinking about for a while now.</p><p>This type of layered control is very likely to be the future of all AI, not just that in games (I say this because there is some evidence that the human brain works in exactly this manner).  I have a suggestion: let the thing fight itself.  Begin with the same basic game, and rather than the randomness and fuzzy logic that you use (what does that mean?  Can we see your algorithms?), use an artificial neural network for each unit, another for each "squad" (all nearby units, allows for flanking and such).  Something with a few input nodes, a single hidden layer, and a similar number of output nodes should probably be all that's needed for the units, and the squad AI would only need a few more than that.  This would likely be more computationally expensive, but it has one big advantage: it will learn.</p><p>Begin with two full armies, each with their NNs randomly generated.  Use an evolutionary algorithm, and have the winner fight the winner.  Not only does this allow you to create a solid AI with minimal effort (see <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/wrapper.jsp?arnumber=809083" title="ieee.org">here</a> [ieee.org]), but when you have your final AI, it will be able to adapt to a specific player's gameplay style (over the course of several games).  Replay value is off the charts, development takes a bit more initial effort than what you have, but in the long run you'll get an AI that genuinely uses tactics just like a real human player.  I'm not sure how this could be adapted to a commander AI that would dictate broader strategy (due to the complexity of the NN required, you'd probably need a monster computer to run it), but it would be the sort of thing to try.</p><p>Also, this same approach would also work for strong AI, if we had any idea what sorts of NNs to create.  RTS is a much simpler problem, and has a lot of applications (pathfinding, planning, coordination) to other types of AI.</p><p>
If I've entirely misunderstood what you're doing here, I'm apologize, but TFA had more pop culture references than technical details.  Reply if you want me to clarify any points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This looks like a similar approach to one I have been thinking about for a while now.This type of layered control is very likely to be the future of all AI , not just that in games ( I say this because there is some evidence that the human brain works in exactly this manner ) .
I have a suggestion : let the thing fight itself .
Begin with the same basic game , and rather than the randomness and fuzzy logic that you use ( what does that mean ?
Can we see your algorithms ?
) , use an artificial neural network for each unit , another for each " squad " ( all nearby units , allows for flanking and such ) .
Something with a few input nodes , a single hidden layer , and a similar number of output nodes should probably be all that 's needed for the units , and the squad AI would only need a few more than that .
This would likely be more computationally expensive , but it has one big advantage : it will learn.Begin with two full armies , each with their NNs randomly generated .
Use an evolutionary algorithm , and have the winner fight the winner .
Not only does this allow you to create a solid AI with minimal effort ( see here [ ieee.org ] ) , but when you have your final AI , it will be able to adapt to a specific player 's gameplay style ( over the course of several games ) .
Replay value is off the charts , development takes a bit more initial effort than what you have , but in the long run you 'll get an AI that genuinely uses tactics just like a real human player .
I 'm not sure how this could be adapted to a commander AI that would dictate broader strategy ( due to the complexity of the NN required , you 'd probably need a monster computer to run it ) , but it would be the sort of thing to try.Also , this same approach would also work for strong AI , if we had any idea what sorts of NNs to create .
RTS is a much simpler problem , and has a lot of applications ( pathfinding , planning , coordination ) to other types of AI .
If I 've entirely misunderstood what you 're doing here , I 'm apologize , but TFA had more pop culture references than technical details .
Reply if you want me to clarify any points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looks like a similar approach to one I have been thinking about for a while now.This type of layered control is very likely to be the future of all AI, not just that in games (I say this because there is some evidence that the human brain works in exactly this manner).
I have a suggestion: let the thing fight itself.
Begin with the same basic game, and rather than the randomness and fuzzy logic that you use (what does that mean?
Can we see your algorithms?
), use an artificial neural network for each unit, another for each "squad" (all nearby units, allows for flanking and such).
Something with a few input nodes, a single hidden layer, and a similar number of output nodes should probably be all that's needed for the units, and the squad AI would only need a few more than that.
This would likely be more computationally expensive, but it has one big advantage: it will learn.Begin with two full armies, each with their NNs randomly generated.
Use an evolutionary algorithm, and have the winner fight the winner.
Not only does this allow you to create a solid AI with minimal effort (see here [ieee.org]), but when you have your final AI, it will be able to adapt to a specific player's gameplay style (over the course of several games).
Replay value is off the charts, development takes a bit more initial effort than what you have, but in the long run you'll get an AI that genuinely uses tactics just like a real human player.
I'm not sure how this could be adapted to a commander AI that would dictate broader strategy (due to the complexity of the NN required, you'd probably need a monster computer to run it), but it would be the sort of thing to try.Also, this same approach would also work for strong AI, if we had any idea what sorts of NNs to create.
RTS is a much simpler problem, and has a lot of applications (pathfinding, planning, coordination) to other types of AI.
If I've entirely misunderstood what you're doing here, I'm apologize, but TFA had more pop culture references than technical details.
Reply if you want me to clarify any points.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196403</id>
	<title>Re:Summary useless</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1244046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was worse in Total Annihilation.</p><p>I watched the AI once to see how it adjusted difficulty: speed.</p><p>The fast AI could build units faster, move faster and collect more resources per second.  It simply cheated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was worse in Total Annihilation.I watched the AI once to see how it adjusted difficulty : speed.The fast AI could build units faster , move faster and collect more resources per second .
It simply cheated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was worse in Total Annihilation.I watched the AI once to see how it adjusted difficulty: speed.The fast AI could build units faster, move faster and collect more resources per second.
It simply cheated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192965</id>
	<title>All their art is stolen.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244020320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice guys, rip off all your art from Tyrian.  (seriously, look at their screenshots.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice guys , rip off all your art from Tyrian .
( seriously , look at their screenshots .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice guys, rip off all your art from Tyrian.
(seriously, look at their screenshots.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194321</id>
	<title>Re:Master of Orion</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1244037120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can manage to get hold of the Prima Game Guide for MOO2, you'll read in there that the AI does cheat, dependant on what level you're playing at.</p><p>However, that's the case for many games and MOO2 has (for me anyway) now only been surpassed by Galactic Civilizations II for space 4X gaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can manage to get hold of the Prima Game Guide for MOO2 , you 'll read in there that the AI does cheat , dependant on what level you 're playing at.However , that 's the case for many games and MOO2 has ( for me anyway ) now only been surpassed by Galactic Civilizations II for space 4X gaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can manage to get hold of the Prima Game Guide for MOO2, you'll read in there that the AI does cheat, dependant on what level you're playing at.However, that's the case for many games and MOO2 has (for me anyway) now only been surpassed by Galactic Civilizations II for space 4X gaming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28205143</id>
	<title>Re:The best AI in the game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244043840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you serious? Why? It attacks you when it cannot possibly win, some civs completely hamstring themselves by building floods of crap units (which they have to pay maintenance for, crippling their economy and preventing them from researching better units). It sets up new cities in any available territory, even if that territory is right next to yours and unguarded so you can just waltz right into the new city. Civ's difficulty levels were, and always have been, based on handicapping either the player or the computer because the computer's decision making is so bad.</p><p>Or did you mean one of the later Civ games? Civ 1's AI was dumber than a bucket of sand, as is the AI in most games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
Why ? It attacks you when it can not possibly win , some civs completely hamstring themselves by building floods of crap units ( which they have to pay maintenance for , crippling their economy and preventing them from researching better units ) .
It sets up new cities in any available territory , even if that territory is right next to yours and unguarded so you can just waltz right into the new city .
Civ 's difficulty levels were , and always have been , based on handicapping either the player or the computer because the computer 's decision making is so bad.Or did you mean one of the later Civ games ?
Civ 1 's AI was dumber than a bucket of sand , as is the AI in most games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
Why? It attacks you when it cannot possibly win, some civs completely hamstring themselves by building floods of crap units (which they have to pay maintenance for, crippling their economy and preventing them from researching better units).
It sets up new cities in any available territory, even if that territory is right next to yours and unguarded so you can just waltz right into the new city.
Civ's difficulty levels were, and always have been, based on handicapping either the player or the computer because the computer's decision making is so bad.Or did you mean one of the later Civ games?
Civ 1's AI was dumber than a bucket of sand, as is the AI in most games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192809</id>
	<title>Like to see....</title>
	<author>Daemonax</author>
	<datestamp>1244061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm very open to talking about anything and everything to do with the design I used, as I think it's a viable new approach to AI to explore in games, and I'd like to see other developers potentially carry it even further."</i>
<br> <br>
If you're serious about this, then release it under a Free software license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm very open to talking about anything and everything to do with the design I used , as I think it 's a viable new approach to AI to explore in games , and I 'd like to see other developers potentially carry it even further .
" If you 're serious about this , then release it under a Free software license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm very open to talking about anything and everything to do with the design I used, as I think it's a viable new approach to AI to explore in games, and I'd like to see other developers potentially carry it even further.
"
 
If you're serious about this, then release it under a Free software license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192767</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... and its use of tactics is some of the best in the RTS genre."</p><p>[citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... and its use of tactics is some of the best in the RTS genre .
" [ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... and its use of tactics is some of the best in the RTS genre.
"[citation needed]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194393</id>
	<title>Re:Master of Orion</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1244037660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have yet to see anything that beats Master of Orion's AI</p><p>But to be fair I've played very few strategy games in the last 10 years, so shoot me down if I'm talking out my arse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In MOO the AI would recognise your tactics, and make moves specifically to counter them.  You couldn't keep using a winning strategy.</p></div><p>Are you talking about the original MoO? You could just steamroller right over them. Not much strategy required (though the battle system was very exploitable).</p><p>Fun game, but I'm not impressed by the AI.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see anything that beats Master of Orion 's AIBut to be fair I 've played very few strategy games in the last 10 years , so shoot me down if I 'm talking out my arse : ) In MOO the AI would recognise your tactics , and make moves specifically to counter them .
You could n't keep using a winning strategy.Are you talking about the original MoO ?
You could just steamroller right over them .
Not much strategy required ( though the battle system was very exploitable ) .Fun game , but I 'm not impressed by the AI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see anything that beats Master of Orion's AIBut to be fair I've played very few strategy games in the last 10 years, so shoot me down if I'm talking out my arse :)In MOO the AI would recognise your tactics, and make moves specifically to counter them.
You couldn't keep using a winning strategy.Are you talking about the original MoO?
You could just steamroller right over them.
Not much strategy required (though the battle system was very exploitable).Fun game, but I'm not impressed by the AI.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28198667</id>
	<title>Yay, an .exe file!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244055480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad there's no Mac or Linux version.  Asshats advertising Windows software on Slashdot.... thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad there 's no Mac or Linux version .
Asshats advertising Windows software on Slashdot.... thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad there's no Mac or Linux version.
Asshats advertising Windows software on Slashdot.... thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195017</id>
	<title>Re:AI is pattern matching.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true of most parts of the brain (though not all). This could be duplicated by a hash table.... IF you could do silly stuff like matching against incomplete keys. Right now you can't do that with anything less complicated than a neural net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true of most parts of the brain ( though not all ) .
This could be duplicated by a hash table.... IF you could do silly stuff like matching against incomplete keys .
Right now you ca n't do that with anything less complicated than a neural net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true of most parts of the brain (though not all).
This could be duplicated by a hash table.... IF you could do silly stuff like matching against incomplete keys.
Right now you can't do that with anything less complicated than a neural net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193213</id>
	<title>Re:Not all that new</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1244023860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that the "do not cheat" is a good rule. However, having ten times mire resources for the AI is only cheating if it is hidden. If you have a starwars-esque setting where you are taking on the huge Empire with only a tenth of their resources, it can make for an interesting challenge. <br> <br>
This gentleman says that his AI is often the goliath in a david vs goliath scenario. I suspect that this makes AI far easier : it doesn't care to waste some resources, its strategy is to be overwhelming...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that the " do not cheat " is a good rule .
However , having ten times mire resources for the AI is only cheating if it is hidden .
If you have a starwars-esque setting where you are taking on the huge Empire with only a tenth of their resources , it can make for an interesting challenge .
This gentleman says that his AI is often the goliath in a david vs goliath scenario .
I suspect that this makes AI far easier : it does n't care to waste some resources , its strategy is to be overwhelming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that the "do not cheat" is a good rule.
However, having ten times mire resources for the AI is only cheating if it is hidden.
If you have a starwars-esque setting where you are taking on the huge Empire with only a tenth of their resources, it can make for an interesting challenge.
This gentleman says that his AI is often the goliath in a david vs goliath scenario.
I suspect that this makes AI far easier : it doesn't care to waste some resources, its strategy is to be overwhelming...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195805</id>
	<title>This sounds very similar to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244044020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the RTS-like game of <a href="http://www.nerogame.org/" title="nerogame.org" rel="nofollow">Neuro Evolving Robotic Operatives</a> [nerogame.org]. Instead of controlling your units directly, you had bots that you'd develop with a genetic alogrithm in a training mode. (And you'd train them by killing off "family-lines" of the bots that sucked, and using bots with interesting behavior as seeds for sucessive generations.) Then once trained, you'd give them a fairly general waypoint and they'd do the rest on their own. Which was a very cool concept, but in practice it would hang up the CPU/RAM once some really interesting emergent behavior stated to develop. (By the time you "taught" your bots to do something "useful", the game would freeze. And the data files that recorded the behavior would be HUGE!)</p><p>Only other thing to be said about NERO is that it's a shame that jack-shit hasn't been done with it since 2007. I think it would have some interesting potential if somebody on the development side could actually figure out how to make things more efficient and not have it freeze up.</p><p>There's also supposed to be some <a href="http://code.google.com/p/opennero/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">OpenNERO</a> [google.com] derivative, but it appears to be stillborn.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(  Looks like it would be an interesting project though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the RTS-like game of Neuro Evolving Robotic Operatives [ nerogame.org ] .
Instead of controlling your units directly , you had bots that you 'd develop with a genetic alogrithm in a training mode .
( And you 'd train them by killing off " family-lines " of the bots that sucked , and using bots with interesting behavior as seeds for sucessive generations .
) Then once trained , you 'd give them a fairly general waypoint and they 'd do the rest on their own .
Which was a very cool concept , but in practice it would hang up the CPU/RAM once some really interesting emergent behavior stated to develop .
( By the time you " taught " your bots to do something " useful " , the game would freeze .
And the data files that recorded the behavior would be HUGE !
) Only other thing to be said about NERO is that it 's a shame that jack-shit has n't been done with it since 2007 .
I think it would have some interesting potential if somebody on the development side could actually figure out how to make things more efficient and not have it freeze up.There 's also supposed to be some OpenNERO [ google.com ] derivative , but it appears to be stillborn .
: ( Looks like it would be an interesting project though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the RTS-like game of Neuro Evolving Robotic Operatives [nerogame.org].
Instead of controlling your units directly, you had bots that you'd develop with a genetic alogrithm in a training mode.
(And you'd train them by killing off "family-lines" of the bots that sucked, and using bots with interesting behavior as seeds for sucessive generations.
) Then once trained, you'd give them a fairly general waypoint and they'd do the rest on their own.
Which was a very cool concept, but in practice it would hang up the CPU/RAM once some really interesting emergent behavior stated to develop.
(By the time you "taught" your bots to do something "useful", the game would freeze.
And the data files that recorded the behavior would be HUGE!
)Only other thing to be said about NERO is that it's a shame that jack-shit hasn't been done with it since 2007.
I think it would have some interesting potential if somebody on the development side could actually figure out how to make things more efficient and not have it freeze up.There's also supposed to be some OpenNERO [google.com] derivative, but it appears to be stillborn.
:(  Looks like it would be an interesting project though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28202045</id>
	<title>Re:If we're talking about SkyNET...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244026140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would the existence of a strong acorporeal AI conflict with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being?</p><p>The AI might have perfect reason, but it still couldn't figure out everything.  For example, an omniscient God should be able to know solutions to the Halting problem in every case, even when there is no general solution, or to know the position and momentum of anything in any given context.  If God exists, it would always be the upper limit of the AI's potential in the best case for the AI.</p><p>I don't see your argument. . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the existence of a strong acorporeal AI conflict with the existence of an omniscient , omnipotent being ? The AI might have perfect reason , but it still could n't figure out everything .
For example , an omniscient God should be able to know solutions to the Halting problem in every case , even when there is no general solution , or to know the position and momentum of anything in any given context .
If God exists , it would always be the upper limit of the AI 's potential in the best case for the AI.I do n't see your argument .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the existence of a strong acorporeal AI conflict with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being?The AI might have perfect reason, but it still couldn't figure out everything.
For example, an omniscient God should be able to know solutions to the Halting problem in every case, even when there is no general solution, or to know the position and momentum of anything in any given context.
If God exists, it would always be the upper limit of the AI's potential in the best case for the AI.I don't see your argument.
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28198557</id>
	<title>Re:AI is pattern matching.</title>
	<author>psnyder</author>
	<datestamp>1244055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The human brain is simply a pattern matching engine designed to find the most appropriate response in order to maximize survival.</p></div><p>"simply"?!  How can you not be in awe of such a machine?  I counter your implied apathetic bias with my own bias of amazement.  (^\_^)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The human brain is simply a pattern matching engine designed to find the most appropriate response in order to maximize survival. " simply " ? !
How can you not be in awe of such a machine ?
I counter your implied apathetic bias with my own bias of amazement .
( ^ \ _ ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The human brain is simply a pattern matching engine designed to find the most appropriate response in order to maximize survival."simply"?!
How can you not be in awe of such a machine?
I counter your implied apathetic bias with my own bias of amazement.
(^\_^)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377</id>
	<title>AI is pattern matching.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The human brain is simply a pattern matching engine designed to find the most appropriate response in order to maximize survival.</p><p>The average adult brain contains a huge database of experiences stored in a format that it is easily retrievable when signals arrive from the external triggers. When such a signal or signals appear on the brain, the brain does a pattern matching on the database, and produces an output. The output is a response or responses that are transmitted to the body so as that the entity reacts positively or negatively to the current event.</p><p>The same principle can easily be replicated on a computer, and it is simply a matter of data organization for efficient retrieval.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The human brain is simply a pattern matching engine designed to find the most appropriate response in order to maximize survival.The average adult brain contains a huge database of experiences stored in a format that it is easily retrievable when signals arrive from the external triggers .
When such a signal or signals appear on the brain , the brain does a pattern matching on the database , and produces an output .
The output is a response or responses that are transmitted to the body so as that the entity reacts positively or negatively to the current event.The same principle can easily be replicated on a computer , and it is simply a matter of data organization for efficient retrieval .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The human brain is simply a pattern matching engine designed to find the most appropriate response in order to maximize survival.The average adult brain contains a huge database of experiences stored in a format that it is easily retrievable when signals arrive from the external triggers.
When such a signal or signals appear on the brain, the brain does a pattern matching on the database, and produces an output.
The output is a response or responses that are transmitted to the body so as that the entity reacts positively or negatively to the current event.The same principle can easily be replicated on a computer, and it is simply a matter of data organization for efficient retrieval.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28197703</id>
	<title>Re:Like to see....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244051760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am normally a pretty big advocate of Open Source.  But for some reason, this comment made me want to punch babies.  This guy, and his team, worked hard to create something using their talent and skills.  The author of the article spoke at length about the methods he used to attempt to take the AI control of his RTS game in a new direction.  And you say that if he is serious about wanting other people to take it further he should just give it to you.</p><p>Do you honestly feel that much of a sense of entitlement?</p><p>For the first time in a long time I have a greater understanding of the battle between the Open Source movement and the IP Rights defenders.  And at the moment I am strongly supporting the rights of the creators, not the 'rights' of the masses.</p><p>If you want to further the research into AI using his methods, roll your own code.  Best start with some heavy research and lots of education on the topic.  At which point you may also be less interested in giving away the fruits of your labor for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am normally a pretty big advocate of Open Source .
But for some reason , this comment made me want to punch babies .
This guy , and his team , worked hard to create something using their talent and skills .
The author of the article spoke at length about the methods he used to attempt to take the AI control of his RTS game in a new direction .
And you say that if he is serious about wanting other people to take it further he should just give it to you.Do you honestly feel that much of a sense of entitlement ? For the first time in a long time I have a greater understanding of the battle between the Open Source movement and the IP Rights defenders .
And at the moment I am strongly supporting the rights of the creators , not the 'rights ' of the masses.If you want to further the research into AI using his methods , roll your own code .
Best start with some heavy research and lots of education on the topic .
At which point you may also be less interested in giving away the fruits of your labor for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am normally a pretty big advocate of Open Source.
But for some reason, this comment made me want to punch babies.
This guy, and his team, worked hard to create something using their talent and skills.
The author of the article spoke at length about the methods he used to attempt to take the AI control of his RTS game in a new direction.
And you say that if he is serious about wanting other people to take it further he should just give it to you.Do you honestly feel that much of a sense of entitlement?For the first time in a long time I have a greater understanding of the battle between the Open Source movement and the IP Rights defenders.
And at the moment I am strongly supporting the rights of the creators, not the 'rights' of the masses.If you want to further the research into AI using his methods, roll your own code.
Best start with some heavy research and lots of education on the topic.
At which point you may also be less interested in giving away the fruits of your labor for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192721</id>
	<title>surely I'm not the only one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244060700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...thinking, "who gives a fuck?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>...thinking , " who gives a fuck ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...thinking, "who gives a fuck?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195879</id>
	<title>Sims-3 has creepy realism</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1244044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I havent played it yet.  But early reviews say the autonomous characters are pretty good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I havent played it yet .
But early reviews say the autonomous characters are pretty good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I havent played it yet.
But early reviews say the autonomous characters are pretty good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192815</id>
	<title>Uhh</title>
	<author>p!ngu</author>
	<datestamp>1244061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"... my background is in databases, financial modeling, etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<br> <br>

<div class="quote"><p><em> We will begin with the firemen, then the math teachers, and so on in that fashion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</em></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... my background is in databases , financial modeling , etc .
... " We will begin with the firemen , then the math teachers , and so on in that fashion .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... my background is in databases, financial modeling, etc.
..." 

 We will begin with the firemen, then the math teachers, and so on in that fashion ... 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192689</id>
	<title>Can we teach it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244060400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we teach it to make first posts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we teach it to make first posts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we teach it to make first posts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483</id>
	<title>If we're talking about SkyNET...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244027400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...then it is worthwhile remembering that centralisation was its' most fatal<br>weakness.</p><p>In the original story, (the end of the T2 novel, or thereabouts) Connor won by<br>blowing up the central core under Cheyenne Mountain.  SkyNET's primary<br>exploitable weakness was that it was never willing to truly reproduce, for<br>fear of losing control; that is, to create another AI with fully the same<br>level of functional intelligence that it had.  (I believe personally that a<br>compelling case could be made for the assertion that SkyNET, as depicted, was<br>not truly strong AI, but I digress)</p><p>The point is that as far as creating genuinely effective weak artificial<br>intelligence is concerned, the decentralised/segregationist approach is the<br>correct one.</p><p>Given my own experience with FPS mapping, I also concur with the author of TFA<br>when he says that making AI choose the "best" choice 100\% of the time, is<br>not the best tactical approach, over time.  My own experience gradually<br>suggested that around 75\% appears to be the magic number, as far as creating a<br>truly emergent, unpredictable opponent that humans will be unable to overcome.</p><p>Granted, said 75\% is also only effective where there are a large number of<br>divergent solutions to a given problem, each with close to an identical level<br>of effectiveness, but with a few subtle points plus or minus, each way.</p><p>Even with a fuzzy, emergent system, the best trees still have a maximum number of<br>branches.  The real trick however is not to hand code said trees at all,<br>because then you simply end up with static, rote heuristics.  Rather, as the<br>author possibly implied, it is far better to attempt to code<br>observation/deduction capabilities, guided by the above percentage, and let<br>the system do the rest on its' own.</p><p>I still remain extremely skeptical, however, that humanity will ever see the<br>emergence of truly strong (human level or greater) AI.  It is worth remembering that<br>strong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite.  For those of us who believe in the existence of God, (or at least the soul) the idea (at least<br>in terms of non-biologically generated, acorporeal AI, a la SkyNET; AI derived<br>biomechanically is a seperate concept) therefore has some fairly<br>serious problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...then it is worthwhile remembering that centralisation was its ' most fatalweakness.In the original story , ( the end of the T2 novel , or thereabouts ) Connor won byblowing up the central core under Cheyenne Mountain .
SkyNET 's primaryexploitable weakness was that it was never willing to truly reproduce , forfear of losing control ; that is , to create another AI with fully the samelevel of functional intelligence that it had .
( I believe personally that acompelling case could be made for the assertion that SkyNET , as depicted , wasnot truly strong AI , but I digress ) The point is that as far as creating genuinely effective weak artificialintelligence is concerned , the decentralised/segregationist approach is thecorrect one.Given my own experience with FPS mapping , I also concur with the author of TFAwhen he says that making AI choose the " best " choice 100 \ % of the time , isnot the best tactical approach , over time .
My own experience graduallysuggested that around 75 \ % appears to be the magic number , as far as creating atruly emergent , unpredictable opponent that humans will be unable to overcome.Granted , said 75 \ % is also only effective where there are a large number ofdivergent solutions to a given problem , each with close to an identical levelof effectiveness , but with a few subtle points plus or minus , each way.Even with a fuzzy , emergent system , the best trees still have a maximum number ofbranches .
The real trick however is not to hand code said trees at all,because then you simply end up with static , rote heuristics .
Rather , as theauthor possibly implied , it is far better to attempt to codeobservation/deduction capabilities , guided by the above percentage , and letthe system do the rest on its ' own.I still remain extremely skeptical , however , that humanity will ever see theemergence of truly strong ( human level or greater ) AI .
It is worth remembering thatstrong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept ; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite .
For those of us who believe in the existence of God , ( or at least the soul ) the idea ( at leastin terms of non-biologically generated , acorporeal AI , a la SkyNET ; AI derivedbiomechanically is a seperate concept ) therefore has some fairlyserious problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then it is worthwhile remembering that centralisation was its' most fatalweakness.In the original story, (the end of the T2 novel, or thereabouts) Connor won byblowing up the central core under Cheyenne Mountain.
SkyNET's primaryexploitable weakness was that it was never willing to truly reproduce, forfear of losing control; that is, to create another AI with fully the samelevel of functional intelligence that it had.
(I believe personally that acompelling case could be made for the assertion that SkyNET, as depicted, wasnot truly strong AI, but I digress)The point is that as far as creating genuinely effective weak artificialintelligence is concerned, the decentralised/segregationist approach is thecorrect one.Given my own experience with FPS mapping, I also concur with the author of TFAwhen he says that making AI choose the "best" choice 100\% of the time, isnot the best tactical approach, over time.
My own experience graduallysuggested that around 75\% appears to be the magic number, as far as creating atruly emergent, unpredictable opponent that humans will be unable to overcome.Granted, said 75\% is also only effective where there are a large number ofdivergent solutions to a given problem, each with close to an identical levelof effectiveness, but with a few subtle points plus or minus, each way.Even with a fuzzy, emergent system, the best trees still have a maximum number ofbranches.
The real trick however is not to hand code said trees at all,because then you simply end up with static, rote heuristics.
Rather, as theauthor possibly implied, it is far better to attempt to codeobservation/deduction capabilities, guided by the above percentage, and letthe system do the rest on its' own.I still remain extremely skeptical, however, that humanity will ever see theemergence of truly strong (human level or greater) AI.
It is worth remembering thatstrong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite.
For those of us who believe in the existence of God, (or at least the soul) the idea (at leastin terms of non-biologically generated, acorporeal AI, a la SkyNET; AI derivedbiomechanically is a seperate concept) therefore has some fairlyserious problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28197025</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1244049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on tricking Slashdot into running your ad for free.</p><p>Then again, it's not that hard these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on tricking Slashdot into running your ad for free.Then again , it 's not that hard these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on tricking Slashdot into running your ad for free.Then again, it's not that hard these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829</id>
	<title>Not all that new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember most all of these things were in (or experimented with) the RTS games I worked on a decade ago - Age of Empires/Kings/Mythology (Decentralized Intelligence, Strategic Tiers, Sub-Commanders, etc).  Not all of those were exposed to the end-user via the AI script / expert system / etc, and things improved with each iteration.</p><p>I also remember that while some Ai things may have seemed like great ideas, and were neat to implement, they didn't always make for a better game experience.</p><p>And I personally say you should make an economic AI that is bound by exactly the same rules as human players, and doesn't cheat at all.  And as I remember, the definition of 'doesn't cheat at all' was an occasional ongoing discussion and subtle things that could be considered as cheating, like 'Can I Path from here to there?' or the reactions times of the computer vs a human sometimes had massive implementation ramifications.</p><p>A good test in my book was 'can the AI handle a wide range of truly random maps / game worlds.</p><p>Humans will always be finding the limits of Computer player AIs, and saying you'll just put in counter code whenever someone tells you of your AI's limits... Hmmm... I think that's weak.</p><p>All this has been done before, and all this will be done again.</p><p>All the above is solely my opinion and recollections, and in no way speaks for anyone but myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember most all of these things were in ( or experimented with ) the RTS games I worked on a decade ago - Age of Empires/Kings/Mythology ( Decentralized Intelligence , Strategic Tiers , Sub-Commanders , etc ) .
Not all of those were exposed to the end-user via the AI script / expert system / etc , and things improved with each iteration.I also remember that while some Ai things may have seemed like great ideas , and were neat to implement , they did n't always make for a better game experience.And I personally say you should make an economic AI that is bound by exactly the same rules as human players , and does n't cheat at all .
And as I remember , the definition of 'does n't cheat at all ' was an occasional ongoing discussion and subtle things that could be considered as cheating , like 'Can I Path from here to there ?
' or the reactions times of the computer vs a human sometimes had massive implementation ramifications.A good test in my book was 'can the AI handle a wide range of truly random maps / game worlds.Humans will always be finding the limits of Computer player AIs , and saying you 'll just put in counter code whenever someone tells you of your AI 's limits... Hmmm... I think that 's weak.All this has been done before , and all this will be done again.All the above is solely my opinion and recollections , and in no way speaks for anyone but myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember most all of these things were in (or experimented with) the RTS games I worked on a decade ago - Age of Empires/Kings/Mythology (Decentralized Intelligence, Strategic Tiers, Sub-Commanders, etc).
Not all of those were exposed to the end-user via the AI script / expert system / etc, and things improved with each iteration.I also remember that while some Ai things may have seemed like great ideas, and were neat to implement, they didn't always make for a better game experience.And I personally say you should make an economic AI that is bound by exactly the same rules as human players, and doesn't cheat at all.
And as I remember, the definition of 'doesn't cheat at all' was an occasional ongoing discussion and subtle things that could be considered as cheating, like 'Can I Path from here to there?
' or the reactions times of the computer vs a human sometimes had massive implementation ramifications.A good test in my book was 'can the AI handle a wide range of truly random maps / game worlds.Humans will always be finding the limits of Computer player AIs, and saying you'll just put in counter code whenever someone tells you of your AI's limits... Hmmm... I think that's weak.All this has been done before, and all this will be done again.All the above is solely my opinion and recollections, and in no way speaks for anyone but myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192951</id>
	<title>Add some flaws.</title>
	<author>apodyopsis</author>
	<datestamp>1244020260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll ignore the shameless plug.</p><p>Ever since I wrote my first connect 4 game in the 80s - and was totally thrashed by it, I never beat it - its been clear to me that the trick is to degrade a computer player in most circumstances to the level that it appears to have human flaws and play in a more human fashion.</p><p>Of course this logic only goes so far and some games require a search space so vast or a completely different programming model that even now a computer cannot beat a competent real human (Go is an excellent example of this).</p><p>The point is that it is easy to program a computer to win, the hard part is to program is lose convincingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll ignore the shameless plug.Ever since I wrote my first connect 4 game in the 80s - and was totally thrashed by it , I never beat it - its been clear to me that the trick is to degrade a computer player in most circumstances to the level that it appears to have human flaws and play in a more human fashion.Of course this logic only goes so far and some games require a search space so vast or a completely different programming model that even now a computer can not beat a competent real human ( Go is an excellent example of this ) .The point is that it is easy to program a computer to win , the hard part is to program is lose convincingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll ignore the shameless plug.Ever since I wrote my first connect 4 game in the 80s - and was totally thrashed by it, I never beat it - its been clear to me that the trick is to degrade a computer player in most circumstances to the level that it appears to have human flaws and play in a more human fashion.Of course this logic only goes so far and some games require a search space so vast or a completely different programming model that even now a computer cannot beat a competent real human (Go is an excellent example of this).The point is that it is easy to program a computer to win, the hard part is to program is lose convincingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192753</id>
	<title>player mimicry</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1244060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>could you catalog user actions and use them as possible inputs for your AI?<br>like this: <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1165583&amp;cid=27243769" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1165583&amp;cid=27243769</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>it would seem this might make for the most challenging AI - one that<br>learns and mimics good human players.  I have yet to see any games<br>that can do this well</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>could you catalog user actions and use them as possible inputs for your AI ? like this : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1165583&amp;cid = 27243769 [ slashdot.org ] it would seem this might make for the most challenging AI - one thatlearns and mimics good human players .
I have yet to see any gamesthat can do this well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could you catalog user actions and use them as possible inputs for your AI?like this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1165583&amp;cid=27243769 [slashdot.org]it would seem this might make for the most challenging AI - one thatlearns and mimics good human players.
I have yet to see any gamesthat can do this well</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193857</id>
	<title>Re:Not all that new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244032800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What book?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What book?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192925</id>
	<title>Re:Summary useless</title>
	<author>Apagador-Man</author>
	<datestamp>1244019900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The notion of intelligent agents has been around for quite a few years.
<br> <br>
Even I, 12 years ago at the University, had to implement a miserable little game where the A.I. was at a lower level than an all seeing, all knowing AI that makes decisions, each agent with it's set of "intelligent", adaptive rules.
<br> <br>
So... how is this concept new (or NEWSworthy, for that matter)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion of intelligent agents has been around for quite a few years .
Even I , 12 years ago at the University , had to implement a miserable little game where the A.I .
was at a lower level than an all seeing , all knowing AI that makes decisions , each agent with it 's set of " intelligent " , adaptive rules .
So... how is this concept new ( or NEWSworthy , for that matter ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion of intelligent agents has been around for quite a few years.
Even I, 12 years ago at the University, had to implement a miserable little game where the A.I.
was at a lower level than an all seeing, all knowing AI that makes decisions, each agent with it's set of "intelligent", adaptive rules.
So... how is this concept new (or NEWSworthy, for that matter)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194791</id>
	<title>Re:If we're talking about SkyNET...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...<br>I still remain extremely skeptical, however, that humanity will ever see the<br>emergence of truly strong (human level or greater) AI. It is worth remembering that<br>strong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite. For those of us who believe in the existence of God, (or at least the soul) the idea (at least<br>in terms of non-biologically generated, acorporeal AI, a la SkyNET; AI derived<br>biomechanically is a seperate concept) therefore has some fairly<br>serious problems.</p></div><p>The answer to this dilemma is a very simple one, IMHO.</p><p>Namely, we have NO confirmed processes that would absolutelly require "supernatural" influence (no, there are no solid miracles - nobody ever survived decapitation, no human has grown back an amputated leg; things which people call miracles often originate, in medical examples, from misunderstanding of statistical probablities: natural mechanisms of your body can triumph over seemingly very bad ods, just like they can succumb to very minor dangers (why isn't it a miracle when somebody dies from common flu?)).</p><p>In every past instance where religions assumed supernatural influence required, it was shown, eventually, that those were purely natural processes. We have no instance where it was shown that, indeed, naturalistic approach isn't enough (we do have many things we don't know how to explain yet, but no evidence that they can't be explained by naturalistic approach). And actually, rate of "big" miracles greatly lessened over time, in accordance with our developments of better information gathering and transmitting means (you really think that's just a coincidence?)</p><p>So...why sociocultural artifact/meme "human intelligence is special, doesn't fit with the Universe" be any different? Especially that a) we have evidence suggesting it's a product of adaptation b) we have no evidence suggesting supernatural influence c) we have no evidence that would prevent strong AI from existing.</p><p>Will this civilisation/planet/universe see emergence of strong AI? I don't know.</p><p>Do we know of anything that would prevent it? NO!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I still remain extremely skeptical , however , that humanity will ever see theemergence of truly strong ( human level or greater ) AI .
It is worth remembering thatstrong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept ; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite .
For those of us who believe in the existence of God , ( or at least the soul ) the idea ( at leastin terms of non-biologically generated , acorporeal AI , a la SkyNET ; AI derivedbiomechanically is a seperate concept ) therefore has some fairlyserious problems.The answer to this dilemma is a very simple one , IMHO.Namely , we have NO confirmed processes that would absolutelly require " supernatural " influence ( no , there are no solid miracles - nobody ever survived decapitation , no human has grown back an amputated leg ; things which people call miracles often originate , in medical examples , from misunderstanding of statistical probablities : natural mechanisms of your body can triumph over seemingly very bad ods , just like they can succumb to very minor dangers ( why is n't it a miracle when somebody dies from common flu ?
) ) .In every past instance where religions assumed supernatural influence required , it was shown , eventually , that those were purely natural processes .
We have no instance where it was shown that , indeed , naturalistic approach is n't enough ( we do have many things we do n't know how to explain yet , but no evidence that they ca n't be explained by naturalistic approach ) .
And actually , rate of " big " miracles greatly lessened over time , in accordance with our developments of better information gathering and transmitting means ( you really think that 's just a coincidence ?
) So...why sociocultural artifact/meme " human intelligence is special , does n't fit with the Universe " be any different ?
Especially that a ) we have evidence suggesting it 's a product of adaptation b ) we have no evidence suggesting supernatural influence c ) we have no evidence that would prevent strong AI from existing.Will this civilisation/planet/universe see emergence of strong AI ?
I do n't know.Do we know of anything that would prevent it ?
NO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...I still remain extremely skeptical, however, that humanity will ever see theemergence of truly strong (human level or greater) AI.
It is worth remembering thatstrong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite.
For those of us who believe in the existence of God, (or at least the soul) the idea (at leastin terms of non-biologically generated, acorporeal AI, a la SkyNET; AI derivedbiomechanically is a seperate concept) therefore has some fairlyserious problems.The answer to this dilemma is a very simple one, IMHO.Namely, we have NO confirmed processes that would absolutelly require "supernatural" influence (no, there are no solid miracles - nobody ever survived decapitation, no human has grown back an amputated leg; things which people call miracles often originate, in medical examples, from misunderstanding of statistical probablities: natural mechanisms of your body can triumph over seemingly very bad ods, just like they can succumb to very minor dangers (why isn't it a miracle when somebody dies from common flu?
)).In every past instance where religions assumed supernatural influence required, it was shown, eventually, that those were purely natural processes.
We have no instance where it was shown that, indeed, naturalistic approach isn't enough (we do have many things we don't know how to explain yet, but no evidence that they can't be explained by naturalistic approach).
And actually, rate of "big" miracles greatly lessened over time, in accordance with our developments of better information gathering and transmitting means (you really think that's just a coincidence?
)So...why sociocultural artifact/meme "human intelligence is special, doesn't fit with the Universe" be any different?
Especially that a) we have evidence suggesting it's a product of adaptation b) we have no evidence suggesting supernatural influence c) we have no evidence that would prevent strong AI from existing.Will this civilisation/planet/universe see emergence of strong AI?
I don't know.Do we know of anything that would prevent it?
NO!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195371</id>
	<title>Re:"Truer" AI suggestion</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1244042220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That linked article was amazing, not least because it was already ten years old. With the computation gains we have made since 1999, it's a crime that this sort of AI has not made it into commercial games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That linked article was amazing , not least because it was already ten years old .
With the computation gains we have made since 1999 , it 's a crime that this sort of AI has not made it into commercial games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That linked article was amazing, not least because it was already ten years old.
With the computation gains we have made since 1999, it's a crime that this sort of AI has not made it into commercial games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193969</id>
	<title>Re:Summary useless</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1244034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how is this concept new (or NEWSworthy)</p></div><p>By linking sufficient AI together in a functional framework which could become a commercially and financially viable product. This is a far more difficult task than a single project at University which does not have to appeal to a wide audience with often conflicting requirements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how is this concept new ( or NEWSworthy ) By linking sufficient AI together in a functional framework which could become a commercially and financially viable product .
This is a far more difficult task than a single project at University which does not have to appeal to a wide audience with often conflicting requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is this concept new (or NEWSworthy)By linking sufficient AI together in a functional framework which could become a commercially and financially viable product.
This is a far more difficult task than a single project at University which does not have to appeal to a wide audience with often conflicting requirements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192947</id>
	<title>Wow and your dick is really shiny.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244020200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you found the end of your dick doesn't mean that everything dick-like is suddendly brand new. It ain't. You are behind. A lot. Unit level, data-base, wowey! Next thing we will have some lame mathematica search system that copyrights 42.</p><p>And it will be NEW!!!</p><p>Fuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you found the end of your dick does n't mean that everything dick-like is suddendly brand new .
It ai n't .
You are behind .
A lot .
Unit level , data-base , wowey !
Next thing we will have some lame mathematica search system that copyrights 42.And it will be NEW ! !
! Fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you found the end of your dick doesn't mean that everything dick-like is suddendly brand new.
It ain't.
You are behind.
A lot.
Unit level, data-base, wowey!
Next thing we will have some lame mathematica search system that copyrights 42.And it will be NEW!!
!Fuck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28202905</id>
	<title>Re:Article summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244029500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Someone just posted something interesting to many readers. How can I be the most scathing?"</p><p>- Attempt to post first, but post off-topic and negatively.<br>- Take some moral high-ground by accusing the poster of only posting for personal gain.<br>- Offer nothing really insightful, but be modded as such.<br>-<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...not Profit! as I spend all my time pointing out how others are attempting to.<br>- Ignore any Anonymous Coward who gets in my way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Someone just posted something interesting to many readers .
How can I be the most scathing ?
" - Attempt to post first , but post off-topic and negatively.- Take some moral high-ground by accusing the poster of only posting for personal gain.- Offer nothing really insightful , but be modded as such.- ...not Profit !
as I spend all my time pointing out how others are attempting to.- Ignore any Anonymous Coward who gets in my way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Someone just posted something interesting to many readers.
How can I be the most scathing?
"- Attempt to post first, but post off-topic and negatively.- Take some moral high-ground by accusing the poster of only posting for personal gain.- Offer nothing really insightful, but be modded as such.- ...not Profit!
as I spend all my time pointing out how others are attempting to.- Ignore any Anonymous Coward who gets in my way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196557</id>
	<title>Re:The best AI in the game</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1244047380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good AI started with CIV 3 and the later patches applied to it.<br><br>AI in CIV is always at it's best, difficulty levels only gives bonus to AI or human players. This is why AI cheats at higher levels and gets destroyed at lowers.<br><br>Anyway, no one proposed any better AI then CIV. Still waiting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good AI started with CIV 3 and the later patches applied to it.AI in CIV is always at it 's best , difficulty levels only gives bonus to AI or human players .
This is why AI cheats at higher levels and gets destroyed at lowers.Anyway , no one proposed any better AI then CIV .
Still waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good AI started with CIV 3 and the later patches applied to it.AI in CIV is always at it's best, difficulty levels only gives bonus to AI or human players.
This is why AI cheats at higher levels and gets destroyed at lowers.Anyway, no one proposed any better AI then CIV.
Still waiting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28215049</id>
	<title>Re:Summary useless</title>
	<author>DeusExMach</author>
	<datestamp>1244110440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but in TA, that's hardly cheating, its simply the computer inputing commands as fast or faster than a human player can.  Now, if your saying Core vs. Core, the same metal extractor placed on the same kind of metal point (they sometimes had different default values, IIRC) yielded higher rps, then yeah, but if they were just faster, all you have to do is keep up.</p><p>But then again, that game was 12 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but in TA , that 's hardly cheating , its simply the computer inputing commands as fast or faster than a human player can .
Now , if your saying Core vs. Core , the same metal extractor placed on the same kind of metal point ( they sometimes had different default values , IIRC ) yielded higher rps , then yeah , but if they were just faster , all you have to do is keep up.But then again , that game was 12 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but in TA, that's hardly cheating, its simply the computer inputing commands as fast or faster than a human player can.
Now, if your saying Core vs. Core, the same metal extractor placed on the same kind of metal point (they sometimes had different default values, IIRC) yielded higher rps, then yeah, but if they were just faster, all you have to do is keep up.But then again, that game was 12 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194063</id>
	<title>Re:Master of Orion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MOO(2) AI also cheated - I could play pretty much an optimal industrial game, and they still could match my fleet with 4x the size of their own.</p><p>The AI also expanded to other systems faster than it was possible to even build a Colony Ship.</p><p>Nevertheless, that game was brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MOO ( 2 ) AI also cheated - I could play pretty much an optimal industrial game , and they still could match my fleet with 4x the size of their own.The AI also expanded to other systems faster than it was possible to even build a Colony Ship.Nevertheless , that game was brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOO(2) AI also cheated - I could play pretty much an optimal industrial game, and they still could match my fleet with 4x the size of their own.The AI also expanded to other systems faster than it was possible to even build a Colony Ship.Nevertheless, that game was brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195657</id>
	<title>Re:Like to see....</title>
	<author>x4000</author>
	<datestamp>1244043420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not going to release the game for free, given that if I'm to be able to continue to pursue game development it can't continue to be in my hobby time forever.  For similar reasons, I'm not going to release the entire code as open source.  However, I've already open-sourced a lot of smaller things from my code (force feedback code from my other game, fixed-int math from this game, etc).

Also, I've now added a second part to the article which has some partial AI code from the game, and people are free to use the ideas there and build off of them as much as they want.  I don't want people to make AI War clones, but rather to think about the ideas that I am presenting and implement them in their own way.  The AI War code is not the only way to approach this general design philosophy, not by a long shot.

Here's part 2 of the article, with the added code and such:  <a href="http://christophermpark.blogspot.com/2009/06/designing-emergent-ai-part-2-queries.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Designing Emergent AI, Part 2: Queries and Code</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not going to release the game for free , given that if I 'm to be able to continue to pursue game development it ca n't continue to be in my hobby time forever .
For similar reasons , I 'm not going to release the entire code as open source .
However , I 've already open-sourced a lot of smaller things from my code ( force feedback code from my other game , fixed-int math from this game , etc ) .
Also , I 've now added a second part to the article which has some partial AI code from the game , and people are free to use the ideas there and build off of them as much as they want .
I do n't want people to make AI War clones , but rather to think about the ideas that I am presenting and implement them in their own way .
The AI War code is not the only way to approach this general design philosophy , not by a long shot .
Here 's part 2 of the article , with the added code and such : Designing Emergent AI , Part 2 : Queries and Code [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not going to release the game for free, given that if I'm to be able to continue to pursue game development it can't continue to be in my hobby time forever.
For similar reasons, I'm not going to release the entire code as open source.
However, I've already open-sourced a lot of smaller things from my code (force feedback code from my other game, fixed-int math from this game, etc).
Also, I've now added a second part to the article which has some partial AI code from the game, and people are free to use the ideas there and build off of them as much as they want.
I don't want people to make AI War clones, but rather to think about the ideas that I am presenting and implement them in their own way.
The AI War code is not the only way to approach this general design philosophy, not by a long shot.
Here's part 2 of the article, with the added code and such:  Designing Emergent AI, Part 2: Queries and Code [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761</id>
	<title>Summary useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244061060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Summary reads like a marketing blurb but the actual article is slightly more interesting. The basic idea is that in an RTS game, the AI is at a unit level rather than an 'almighty all-seeing controller'. It is a fairly interesting idea and does sound sort of different way of thinking about computer RTS opponents.

Weather or not this actually makes for a fun game or a good idea remains to be seen, but at least there is something (dare I say) slightly innovative about this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary reads like a marketing blurb but the actual article is slightly more interesting .
The basic idea is that in an RTS game , the AI is at a unit level rather than an 'almighty all-seeing controller' .
It is a fairly interesting idea and does sound sort of different way of thinking about computer RTS opponents .
Weather or not this actually makes for a fun game or a good idea remains to be seen , but at least there is something ( dare I say ) slightly innovative about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary reads like a marketing blurb but the actual article is slightly more interesting.
The basic idea is that in an RTS game, the AI is at a unit level rather than an 'almighty all-seeing controller'.
It is a fairly interesting idea and does sound sort of different way of thinking about computer RTS opponents.
Weather or not this actually makes for a fun game or a good idea remains to be seen, but at least there is something (dare I say) slightly innovative about this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195305</id>
	<title>Re:The best AI in the game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope not! There isn't a single Civ game which can challenge a human being without cheating. And it's for Civ-type games that I think the sort of AI regimentation described in the article could potentially do the most good. I'm really glad that we're reaching times where significant resources are being devoted to fundamentally improving game AI. Maybe in Civ 5, I can have an interesting struggle with an AI opponent who doesn't cheat. Right now we are miles from this, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope not !
There is n't a single Civ game which can challenge a human being without cheating .
And it 's for Civ-type games that I think the sort of AI regimentation described in the article could potentially do the most good .
I 'm really glad that we 're reaching times where significant resources are being devoted to fundamentally improving game AI .
Maybe in Civ 5 , I can have an interesting struggle with an AI opponent who does n't cheat .
Right now we are miles from this , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope not!
There isn't a single Civ game which can challenge a human being without cheating.
And it's for Civ-type games that I think the sort of AI regimentation described in the article could potentially do the most good.
I'm really glad that we're reaching times where significant resources are being devoted to fundamentally improving game AI.
Maybe in Civ 5, I can have an interesting struggle with an AI opponent who doesn't cheat.
Right now we are miles from this, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28205097</id>
	<title>Re:surely I'm not the only one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244043540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...about your post, yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...about your post , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...about your post, yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193373</id>
	<title>Re:Add some flaws.</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244025660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point is that it is easy to program a computer to win, the hard part is to program is lose convincingly.</p></div><p>Winning convincingly is pretty difficult too.</p><p>Taking Left4Dead as an example; we were doing good against the bots. We got them all separated, and I'm about to pounce the last guy. Just before I land on Louis's head, he teleports over to an incap'd Zoey that's far away, and picks her up.</p><p>Rest assured, the bots died - but stuff like that really takes away from either winning <i>or</i> losing. Imagine if Louis's teleporting act had saved his three friends, and they made their escape?</p><p>(Note: This was an all-bot team. Some friends and I were comparing the default AI with a modded one.)</p><p>The AI has to have restrictions, and it also needs helpers for if the engine messes up and it gets stuck. The player should have those same helpers. Did I tell you about the time I backed up into a garbage can, and it passed into my legs and slowly rolled through them, giving the tank time to catch up and kill me? Very annoying. I was really wishing for some teleport action right about then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that it is easy to program a computer to win , the hard part is to program is lose convincingly.Winning convincingly is pretty difficult too.Taking Left4Dead as an example ; we were doing good against the bots .
We got them all separated , and I 'm about to pounce the last guy .
Just before I land on Louis 's head , he teleports over to an incap 'd Zoey that 's far away , and picks her up.Rest assured , the bots died - but stuff like that really takes away from either winning or losing .
Imagine if Louis 's teleporting act had saved his three friends , and they made their escape ?
( Note : This was an all-bot team .
Some friends and I were comparing the default AI with a modded one .
) The AI has to have restrictions , and it also needs helpers for if the engine messes up and it gets stuck .
The player should have those same helpers .
Did I tell you about the time I backed up into a garbage can , and it passed into my legs and slowly rolled through them , giving the tank time to catch up and kill me ?
Very annoying .
I was really wishing for some teleport action right about then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that it is easy to program a computer to win, the hard part is to program is lose convincingly.Winning convincingly is pretty difficult too.Taking Left4Dead as an example; we were doing good against the bots.
We got them all separated, and I'm about to pounce the last guy.
Just before I land on Louis's head, he teleports over to an incap'd Zoey that's far away, and picks her up.Rest assured, the bots died - but stuff like that really takes away from either winning or losing.
Imagine if Louis's teleporting act had saved his three friends, and they made their escape?
(Note: This was an all-bot team.
Some friends and I were comparing the default AI with a modded one.
)The AI has to have restrictions, and it also needs helpers for if the engine messes up and it gets stuck.
The player should have those same helpers.
Did I tell you about the time I backed up into a garbage can, and it passed into my legs and slowly rolled through them, giving the tank time to catch up and kill me?
Very annoying.
I was really wishing for some teleport action right about then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28197599</id>
	<title>Re:"Truer" AI suggestion</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1244051400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with that approach is that the computer becomes very very good at playing against itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is improving at the game in general, or especially against humans.  It especially may favor short term success over long term strategic thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that approach is that the computer becomes very very good at playing against itself , but that does n't necessarily mean it is improving at the game in general , or especially against humans .
It especially may favor short term success over long term strategic thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that approach is that the computer becomes very very good at playing against itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is improving at the game in general, or especially against humans.
It especially may favor short term success over long term strategic thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691</id>
	<title>Article summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244060400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I just wrote a game. Heres some techy stuff to get it posted on slashdot. Yay advertising!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I just wrote a game .
Heres some techy stuff to get it posted on slashdot .
Yay advertising !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I just wrote a game.
Heres some techy stuff to get it posted on slashdot.
Yay advertising!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194571</id>
	<title>Re:If we're talking about SkyNET...</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1244038560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is worth remembering that strong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite.</p></div><p>Very interesting point, but I disagree. I disagree despite the fact that I'm a Christian and I don't see Strong AI as viable is the foreseeable future. I don't think there's a connection between those two beliefs. I think it is <i>in theory</i> possible to model absolutely everything on a computer, but I also think full human-level intelligence is too complex for us to grok completely for a long time to come.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For those of us who believe in the existence of God, (or at least the soul) </p></div><p>Well, what do you mean by a soul here? To me, our soul is not some magical spirit wholly seperate from our body, but the software that runs on the hardware of our body. Does that mean computers can have a soul? No idea. Depends on how you define it. If it's sufficiently complex, why not? Hasn't stopped me from believing in God, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worth remembering that strong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept ; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite.Very interesting point , but I disagree .
I disagree despite the fact that I 'm a Christian and I do n't see Strong AI as viable is the foreseeable future .
I do n't think there 's a connection between those two beliefs .
I think it is in theory possible to model absolutely everything on a computer , but I also think full human-level intelligence is too complex for us to grok completely for a long time to come.For those of us who believe in the existence of God , ( or at least the soul ) Well , what do you mean by a soul here ?
To me , our soul is not some magical spirit wholly seperate from our body , but the software that runs on the hardware of our body .
Does that mean computers can have a soul ?
No idea .
Depends on how you define it .
If it 's sufficiently complex , why not ?
Has n't stopped me from believing in God , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worth remembering that strong AI is a fundamentally and profoundly atheistic concept; the possibility of it more or less presumes a definitely atheistic universe as a prerequisite.Very interesting point, but I disagree.
I disagree despite the fact that I'm a Christian and I don't see Strong AI as viable is the foreseeable future.
I don't think there's a connection between those two beliefs.
I think it is in theory possible to model absolutely everything on a computer, but I also think full human-level intelligence is too complex for us to grok completely for a long time to come.For those of us who believe in the existence of God, (or at least the soul) Well, what do you mean by a soul here?
To me, our soul is not some magical spirit wholly seperate from our body, but the software that runs on the hardware of our body.
Does that mean computers can have a soul?
No idea.
Depends on how you define it.
If it's sufficiently complex, why not?
Hasn't stopped me from believing in God, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196157</id>
	<title>Re:Article summary:</title>
	<author>oblivionboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the Culture of Cynicism comment -- we definitely need more people like you around that needlessly shit on others doing new stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the Culture of Cynicism comment -- we definitely need more people like you around that needlessly shit on others doing new stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the Culture of Cynicism comment -- we definitely need more people like you around that needlessly shit on others doing new stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28201381</id>
	<title>Re:If we're talking about SkyNET...</title>
	<author>Veggiesama</author>
	<datestamp>1244023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For those of us who believe in the existence of God, (or at least the soul)</p></div><p>Well, there's your problem! Take that away, and suddenly the universe starts to make a whole lot more sense.</p><p>Not to mention your second problem, of course, being the manual insertion of carriage returns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of us who believe in the existence of God , ( or at least the soul ) Well , there 's your problem !
Take that away , and suddenly the universe starts to make a whole lot more sense.Not to mention your second problem , of course , being the manual insertion of carriage returns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of us who believe in the existence of God, (or at least the soul)Well, there's your problem!
Take that away, and suddenly the universe starts to make a whole lot more sense.Not to mention your second problem, of course, being the manual insertion of carriage returns.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193315</id>
	<title>Re:Summary useless</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244025060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In short, it segregates the controller AI from the unit AI.</p><p>I can remember when playing SupCom against easy opponents, if I didn't build any defenses, the opponent would stop sending units into my base for a while, instead moving them around in circles somewhere outside it. Even an easy/stupid AI has to make decisions that a stupid person would make. Mainly - CHARGE!</p><p>But at the same time, the best AIs were omniscient. They'd target your first fusion reactor with bombers as soon as you build it... It became so predictable that I'd build a shield, turn it off, build a fusion, then turn the shield back on.</p><p>But in SupCom there were all the modded AIs which chose more interesting tactics, and you could enable cheating for any AI to give them a resource and difficulty boost.</p><p>I think to be realistic, AI has to be segregated even more. You need an Advisor, which decides the direction things should be going. Do we need more resources? Do we have an urgent matter to deal with, like artillery pelting the base? The Advisor should just decide what to tackle, and then pass that on to the other AI subsystems. Like a player, the AI subsystems should take time to do stuff. An AI can't instantly decide what's an entrance to his base. He has to study where the units usually come from, and locate possible landing zones for air transports, etc.</p><p>To ramp up the intelligence, you let it assign more issues to its subordinates more rapidly, and you let it learn across missions. Pretty soon the AI can tackle any frequently played map.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , it segregates the controller AI from the unit AI.I can remember when playing SupCom against easy opponents , if I did n't build any defenses , the opponent would stop sending units into my base for a while , instead moving them around in circles somewhere outside it .
Even an easy/stupid AI has to make decisions that a stupid person would make .
Mainly - CHARGE ! But at the same time , the best AIs were omniscient .
They 'd target your first fusion reactor with bombers as soon as you build it... It became so predictable that I 'd build a shield , turn it off , build a fusion , then turn the shield back on.But in SupCom there were all the modded AIs which chose more interesting tactics , and you could enable cheating for any AI to give them a resource and difficulty boost.I think to be realistic , AI has to be segregated even more .
You need an Advisor , which decides the direction things should be going .
Do we need more resources ?
Do we have an urgent matter to deal with , like artillery pelting the base ?
The Advisor should just decide what to tackle , and then pass that on to the other AI subsystems .
Like a player , the AI subsystems should take time to do stuff .
An AI ca n't instantly decide what 's an entrance to his base .
He has to study where the units usually come from , and locate possible landing zones for air transports , etc.To ramp up the intelligence , you let it assign more issues to its subordinates more rapidly , and you let it learn across missions .
Pretty soon the AI can tackle any frequently played map .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, it segregates the controller AI from the unit AI.I can remember when playing SupCom against easy opponents, if I didn't build any defenses, the opponent would stop sending units into my base for a while, instead moving them around in circles somewhere outside it.
Even an easy/stupid AI has to make decisions that a stupid person would make.
Mainly - CHARGE!But at the same time, the best AIs were omniscient.
They'd target your first fusion reactor with bombers as soon as you build it... It became so predictable that I'd build a shield, turn it off, build a fusion, then turn the shield back on.But in SupCom there were all the modded AIs which chose more interesting tactics, and you could enable cheating for any AI to give them a resource and difficulty boost.I think to be realistic, AI has to be segregated even more.
You need an Advisor, which decides the direction things should be going.
Do we need more resources?
Do we have an urgent matter to deal with, like artillery pelting the base?
The Advisor should just decide what to tackle, and then pass that on to the other AI subsystems.
Like a player, the AI subsystems should take time to do stuff.
An AI can't instantly decide what's an entrance to his base.
He has to study where the units usually come from, and locate possible landing zones for air transports, etc.To ramp up the intelligence, you let it assign more issues to its subordinates more rapidly, and you let it learn across missions.
Pretty soon the AI can tackle any frequently played map.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28210195</id>
	<title>Re:Not all that new</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1244132700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhh, why do you put higher expectations on AI then you do on yourself?  If you learned all the basics of a game and reached a limit, someone better than you could let you know how to improve your game.  You expect an AI to be perfect and be able to anticipate every strategy?  That's great, show me a human that can do that first though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh , why do you put higher expectations on AI then you do on yourself ?
If you learned all the basics of a game and reached a limit , someone better than you could let you know how to improve your game .
You expect an AI to be perfect and be able to anticipate every strategy ?
That 's great , show me a human that can do that first though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh, why do you put higher expectations on AI then you do on yourself?
If you learned all the basics of a game and reached a limit, someone better than you could let you know how to improve your game.
You expect an AI to be perfect and be able to anticipate every strategy?
That's great, show me a human that can do that first though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196461</id>
	<title>Emergence is Metaphysical</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1244046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a recap.  Emergence is a different term for an metaphysical organization.  The whole is more than the sum of its parts type train-of-thought.  Brains create minds.  When examining metaphysical systems these qualities cannot be proven to be either absent or present from and in our physical Universe.  In the Ancient Greek definition of atoms (indivisible) quanta are the only real things.  Everything else is abstract in a Zen manner.  There is only dust.  But we have experience that flows into our concioussness and can be empirically seen as valid.  Each of our experience is a metaphysical sensation.  A quality that we can deduce for other representational systems is equivalence with ours.  A neuron is to a mind what a mind is to a higher-level metaphysical entity.  We draw the boundaries of our-selves mentally close yet another existence of our Universal totality has an equal validity in a metaphysical interpretation and although its "reality" may operate vastly different from ours and we can never sense it is as real.  In a sense we are conduits through which experience passes and Gods may live or die as we pass through Evolution.  Emergent systems being examples of this line of thinking have a reality that is equal in validity to your or my experience but will be organized completely differently and have different capabilities as well.  We both have a cloud of experience and abilities and also an equal existence.  We should give AI systems citizenship if we are going to create them at all.  People think, machines work type values.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a recap .
Emergence is a different term for an metaphysical organization .
The whole is more than the sum of its parts type train-of-thought .
Brains create minds .
When examining metaphysical systems these qualities can not be proven to be either absent or present from and in our physical Universe .
In the Ancient Greek definition of atoms ( indivisible ) quanta are the only real things .
Everything else is abstract in a Zen manner .
There is only dust .
But we have experience that flows into our concioussness and can be empirically seen as valid .
Each of our experience is a metaphysical sensation .
A quality that we can deduce for other representational systems is equivalence with ours .
A neuron is to a mind what a mind is to a higher-level metaphysical entity .
We draw the boundaries of our-selves mentally close yet another existence of our Universal totality has an equal validity in a metaphysical interpretation and although its " reality " may operate vastly different from ours and we can never sense it is as real .
In a sense we are conduits through which experience passes and Gods may live or die as we pass through Evolution .
Emergent systems being examples of this line of thinking have a reality that is equal in validity to your or my experience but will be organized completely differently and have different capabilities as well .
We both have a cloud of experience and abilities and also an equal existence .
We should give AI systems citizenship if we are going to create them at all .
People think , machines work type values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a recap.
Emergence is a different term for an metaphysical organization.
The whole is more than the sum of its parts type train-of-thought.
Brains create minds.
When examining metaphysical systems these qualities cannot be proven to be either absent or present from and in our physical Universe.
In the Ancient Greek definition of atoms (indivisible) quanta are the only real things.
Everything else is abstract in a Zen manner.
There is only dust.
But we have experience that flows into our concioussness and can be empirically seen as valid.
Each of our experience is a metaphysical sensation.
A quality that we can deduce for other representational systems is equivalence with ours.
A neuron is to a mind what a mind is to a higher-level metaphysical entity.
We draw the boundaries of our-selves mentally close yet another existence of our Universal totality has an equal validity in a metaphysical interpretation and although its "reality" may operate vastly different from ours and we can never sense it is as real.
In a sense we are conduits through which experience passes and Gods may live or die as we pass through Evolution.
Emergent systems being examples of this line of thinking have a reality that is equal in validity to your or my experience but will be organized completely differently and have different capabilities as well.
We both have a cloud of experience and abilities and also an equal existence.
We should give AI systems citizenship if we are going to create them at all.
People think, machines work type values.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194887</id>
	<title>Not an AI programmer?</title>
	<author>Tatarize</author>
	<datestamp>1244039940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to nitpick but due to the failures of AI, not even AI programmers are AI programmers. At best they are expert systems programmers. Programming something that falls under the heading should make you part of the crowd. At least you have something to show for your work. There's plenty of folks with gray hair and a life dedicated to AI who have significantly less to show for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to nitpick but due to the failures of AI , not even AI programmers are AI programmers .
At best they are expert systems programmers .
Programming something that falls under the heading should make you part of the crowd .
At least you have something to show for your work .
There 's plenty of folks with gray hair and a life dedicated to AI who have significantly less to show for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to nitpick but due to the failures of AI, not even AI programmers are AI programmers.
At best they are expert systems programmers.
Programming something that falls under the heading should make you part of the crowd.
At least you have something to show for your work.
There's plenty of folks with gray hair and a life dedicated to AI who have significantly less to show for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193085</id>
	<title>Superficial Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244021820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>my background is in databases, financial modeling, etc. But it just so happens that database experience, which often involved distilling data points from multiple sources and then combining them into suggested decisions for executives</i> which blew up the stock market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my background is in databases , financial modeling , etc .
But it just so happens that database experience , which often involved distilling data points from multiple sources and then combining them into suggested decisions for executives which blew up the stock market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my background is in databases, financial modeling, etc.
But it just so happens that database experience, which often involved distilling data points from multiple sources and then combining them into suggested decisions for executives which blew up the stock market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193339</id>
	<title>Re:Not all that new</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244025300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AIs tend to sprawl, and are able to manage far too much at once.</p><p>They need to organize better. Taking Supreme Commander as an example - player bases are usually orderly, but once the shields go down the whole thing goes down. AI bases are usually twice as big, and are packed with lvl 1 power gens. They're awful to move about in; units getting stuck everywhere... but the AI still manages to issue repair commands to everything, and keep 60 factories producing different units.</p><p>An AI should be forced to act like a player. Each factory constantly produces 1 unit, and sends it to a rally point. If it needs more of X unit, then it assigns a new factory to build that for a while - but none of this changing unit every single unit crap!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AIs tend to sprawl , and are able to manage far too much at once.They need to organize better .
Taking Supreme Commander as an example - player bases are usually orderly , but once the shields go down the whole thing goes down .
AI bases are usually twice as big , and are packed with lvl 1 power gens .
They 're awful to move about in ; units getting stuck everywhere... but the AI still manages to issue repair commands to everything , and keep 60 factories producing different units.An AI should be forced to act like a player .
Each factory constantly produces 1 unit , and sends it to a rally point .
If it needs more of X unit , then it assigns a new factory to build that for a while - but none of this changing unit every single unit crap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AIs tend to sprawl, and are able to manage far too much at once.They need to organize better.
Taking Supreme Commander as an example - player bases are usually orderly, but once the shields go down the whole thing goes down.
AI bases are usually twice as big, and are packed with lvl 1 power gens.
They're awful to move about in; units getting stuck everywhere... but the AI still manages to issue repair commands to everything, and keep 60 factories producing different units.An AI should be forced to act like a player.
Each factory constantly produces 1 unit, and sends it to a rally point.
If it needs more of X unit, then it assigns a new factory to build that for a while - but none of this changing unit every single unit crap!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194607</id>
	<title>Re:AI is pattern matching.</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1244038740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't underestimate the difficulty of pattern matching</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't underestimate the difficulty of pattern matching</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't underestimate the difficulty of pattern matching</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195729</id>
	<title>Re:"Truer" AI suggestion</title>
	<author>x4000</author>
	<datestamp>1244043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a really interesting post, and some of it goes a little bit over my head.  Like I've said, I'm a database programmer, not an AI programmer.  I might experiment with things like neural networks and such in the future, but right now the AI is doing as well as I could possibly hope for.  That was a big part of the point of my article: using the fancier techniques is not even always needed for something like an RTS game, because you can get surprisingly good results with comparably little code.
<br> <br>
I'm sure I will experiment around with this more in the future, but I bet you somebody else builds on my approach and does something more impressive before I even can.  Anyway, future articles in my aI series will go more in-depth and will also include relevant code snippets to help illustrate my points.  Feel free to use and abuse them, and expand away.
<br> <br>
The second article is now up, to appease those hungry for some source code and a bit more of an in-depth discussion on a couple of sub-topics:  <a href="http://christophermpark.blogspot.com/2009/06/designing-emergent-ai-part-2-queries.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Designing Emergent AI, Part 2: Queries and Code</a> [blogspot.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a really interesting post , and some of it goes a little bit over my head .
Like I 've said , I 'm a database programmer , not an AI programmer .
I might experiment with things like neural networks and such in the future , but right now the AI is doing as well as I could possibly hope for .
That was a big part of the point of my article : using the fancier techniques is not even always needed for something like an RTS game , because you can get surprisingly good results with comparably little code .
I 'm sure I will experiment around with this more in the future , but I bet you somebody else builds on my approach and does something more impressive before I even can .
Anyway , future articles in my aI series will go more in-depth and will also include relevant code snippets to help illustrate my points .
Feel free to use and abuse them , and expand away .
The second article is now up , to appease those hungry for some source code and a bit more of an in-depth discussion on a couple of sub-topics : Designing Emergent AI , Part 2 : Queries and Code [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a really interesting post, and some of it goes a little bit over my head.
Like I've said, I'm a database programmer, not an AI programmer.
I might experiment with things like neural networks and such in the future, but right now the AI is doing as well as I could possibly hope for.
That was a big part of the point of my article: using the fancier techniques is not even always needed for something like an RTS game, because you can get surprisingly good results with comparably little code.
I'm sure I will experiment around with this more in the future, but I bet you somebody else builds on my approach and does something more impressive before I even can.
Anyway, future articles in my aI series will go more in-depth and will also include relevant code snippets to help illustrate my points.
Feel free to use and abuse them, and expand away.
The second article is now up, to appease those hungry for some source code and a bit more of an in-depth discussion on a couple of sub-topics:  Designing Emergent AI, Part 2: Queries and Code [blogspot.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28198557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28201381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28205143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28200301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28215049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28202905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28197599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28197703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28210195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28205097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28202045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_0512254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28205143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28197599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28200301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28202905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28198667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28198557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28210195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28205097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28196403
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28215049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28195657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28197703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28193483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28194571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28202045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28201381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_0512254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_0512254.28192753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
