Code center > Suggestions
Non-Determinstic Bot DNA flow
PurpleYouko:
Absolutely and therin lies the problem.
In the eyes of the critic, If you allow one abstraction then why not another, then another. More and more until we are over-run with the bloody things.
The kind of sim in which there are no abstractions and everything operates by a simple set of rules is just not feasible if you want any kind of realism.
You can't hope to simulate nature in all its complexity so what choice do we have other than to simplify branches of it like the ties and present them as a done deal. The sim doesn't need to know the physics. They just work. (the physics we do have in them is quite complex enough thanks)
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---(the physics we do have in them is quite complex enough thanks)
--- End quote ---
I'll second that.
The amount of stuff that I have learned working on the physics is sickening. Just sickening!
:puke:
Numsgil:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Hehe, physics is fu-- :puke: can't even get that to come out right.
Griz:
--- Quote ---I seriously have no idea what you are driving at.
--- End quote ---
I am fully aware of that ... believe me!
--- Quote ---I would just like to know how exactly we can have complex behaviour from simple rules. Give me an example.
--- End quote ---
well ... there it is ... right there in that very statement ...
you 'need to know' exactly.
that is an approach ... a way of seeing/interacting with the world.
and you carry it over into your work and programming.
so does Nums. and that's fine ... even essential for programming.
but it can also be limiting if not balanced with a willingness to not
always having to be certain about everything.
I'm no differenct. I recognize it.
I program all of the time doing the raytracing thing ...
so I understand the need for precision and logic and linear thinking ...
for the need to know and control ... etc.
but I also find that the greatest discoveries I make ...
are found 'on my way' to something else ...
that while persuing an idea, I make a mistake in code ...
and end up with something that I would never have thought of doing ...
some idea that never would have entered my mind ...
that would never have occured to me.
and if I am too locked into what I am 'trying' to get to ...
I am then not open to, and likely to miss what is now right in front of me.
I also completely understand what you said about 'fun' at programming ...
that it's not much fun to debug. I hear ya.
and that is part of that discovery thing I am speaking of ...
it's easy to get sidetracked by the 'next' great idea! ;)
I know, I know ... I rarely finish a program ...
as I am constantly discovering some new twist to explore.
I see Num doing that for sure ... so I can relate. ;)
but then there is always the dishes that need to be washed, you know?
so it seems to me that programming is a bit of a balancing act ...
that there are times to be tightly/highly focused on the job at hand ...
and other times when we must be willing to pull back and widen that focus ...
to take in a larger picture, to widen our perspective ...
and to take a look at where we are heading ...
see if we're still on course.
anyway ...
here we are ...
discussing all of this ... bringing it to the forefront of our thoughts ...
to the top of the stack, if you will ;) ...
and now we have yourself and hopefully some other folks willing
to pitch in and lend a hand at debugging and getting a stable version ...
while also moving on with the 2.4x stuff.
so ...
we, along with DB ...
continue to evolve.
as it should be.
Griz:
yes shvarz ... you've understand my point and articulate it well.
--- Quote ---shvarz:
Griz, I am all for evolution and I absolutely want to see complex things evolving from simple elements. In that sense I absolutely agree with you and I've been always opposed to introduction of arbitrary features for bots.
[...]
... just an arbitrary feature that was introduced to model something that people wanted bots to do.
--- End quote ---
yes. well said. the extreme case would be ... people want the bots to look and act like us. ;)
--- Quote ---... This is what Griz means by "controlling" bots behaviour. His (and my) approach would be to create "substances" or "metabolism" with a bunch of molecules and rules for these molecules and their interaction with bots DNA and stack. Then some of these molecules might turn out to be what we consider "poisonous" - they will mess up bot's behaviour. Then some bots may figure out how to deal with these "poisonous" substances and how to deliver them to other bots, creating what we consider to be "venom".
--- End quote ---
that's it ... to not introduce 'artificial' behaviors in an attempt to get bots to act how we think
they should act ... but to provide them with the 'material' and allow them to evolve however they do ...
to develope their own stratigies/tactics/defenses.
I also question mutating the current generation .... but do not yet know enough of how you have
it set up to see how it is actually being implimented. the behavior of an individual should not be
altered in any way once that individual is born ... but only the genes once they have been passed
on to the next generation. but perhaps that IS how it works ... I don't know yet.
I'm still trying to get a version to actually work long enough to get some results to look at!. ;)
--- Quote ---But I've known PY and Nums for a while now and I have to tell you that you are not correct - they do understand how evolution works and they put in a lot of effort into making DB evo-friendly.
--- End quote ---
well ... we might quibble on that. again ... until I understand the code and just what is being mutated
and how/when ... I can't say. ;)
--- Quote ---The reason they don't understand you is because they are programmers who want to know what feature exactly is wrong and how exactly you propose to fix it. I did not see in your posts these things either, so even I don't understand what exactly pisses you off so much.
--- End quote ---
I'm not pissed off ... just very disappointed ... esp in the priorities.
--- Quote ---Yes, there are tons of things that can be added, but we only have 1.5 programmers working on this very complex project now - give these 1.5 guys a break
--- End quote ---
understood. I've had my say ... and whether or not they understand what I am saying ...
it seems to me that at least something is now being done to address the concerns of a great many
of us ... so I see that as progress. you know ... if I have to be devil's advocate to bring something to
the attention of others ... I have no problem doing so.
so ... I do tend to stir up the shit now and then ... always have.
but please know my intentions are good ... and I do indeed want to see people succeed ..,
and DarwinBots succeed as well.
so ...
I'm done sniveling and whining. for now.
here's to Num and PY and all who are part of this ...
it's still the coolest thing I've seen ...
and think of how great it will be when it actually works. ;) lol
cheers to you all.
onward!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version