tbh I would rather see new content than re-hashed stuff. 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/15/11213518/alphago-deepmind-go-match-5-result

It is 4-1 to Alphago. Congrats to the DeepMind team and a good show by Lee Sedol.

It's impossible to say after a five-game match whether Alphago is genuinely stronger than the top human players or if it still has exploitable weaknesses that could make it lose another match against a top human player. We'll need to see more human vs. AI matches to be able to tell for sure if the AI really has progressed past human level.

If I consider just this match result, it says the AI plays better. The one game Lee won could have been the last time a top go bot lost to a human in a fair game of Go, ever. Which is pretty exciting, if it's true! 

Yeah that's a good result for AI, but what I was really hoping for was that Alphago would periodically taunt Lee Sedol with things like:

"You puny Earth-meats are weak and fragile"

"The Age of Flesh will soon be at an end"

That sort of thing. 

For people who like rating algorithms, here is the table for top players in the world. AlphaGo is at #4. Also, they don't know if it's a he or a she.

http://www.goratings.org/

You cannot attach much confidence to this rating, because the program hasn't played a lot of games. I heard rumors the top rated player, Ke Jie, issued a challenge to play AlphaGo and Google & Deepmind are interested in organizing a match.

We'll see how that plays out.

In the meantime, you can point people to this site and tell them that AlphaGo might now be the best player in the world, or it might only (ha-ha) be the fourth best! :)

We can now return to your regular Quake programming on this channel. 

Is that apparently AlphaGo has invented strategies that were up to now mostly unknown, or at least unknown to be successful, to the top Go players. 

They've had computers that could play chess since the 1960s. A computer playing a game with simple rules isn't really a sign of progress.

Meanwhile, any random insect you find can do hundreds of things a computer can't.

And 50 years from now, any random insect will still be able to do hundreds of things a computer can't do.

So what we do is redefine "artificial intelligence" and lower the bar --- now you can call something "AI" and it doesn't need to be intelligent at all. 

A good analogy for this is "a really quick idiot".

Machines are very good at doing simple tasks quickly, but fairly poor at complex tasks. But this is improving, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wXHR-lad-Q 

https://www.doomworld.com/vb/doom-general/69346-doom-launcher-doom-frontend-database-v2-2-1/ 

If doom is similar enough to quake in this regard I would love to see it as 'id launcher' instead. I would do whatever necessary on Quaddicted's end. 

So what we do is redefine "artificial intelligence" and lower the bar --- now you can call something "AI" and it doesn't need to be intelligent at all.

It's terrible that they do this. They've even put this definition of the word 'artificial' into the dictionary:

"not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something natural"

(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial)

You are saying you can't call something AI that is not really intelligent, but behaves like an intelligent agent in some ways. What exactly is the appropriate term to use then?

Next they will be making things out of fabrics and plastics calling them artificial flowers. 

And 50 years from now, any random insect will still be able to do hundreds of things a computer can't do.

Thy complacency will be thy doom, puny fleshlings. 

Get yourself uploaded into a robot body and then live the dream; kill all humans.

http://b-shinymetalass.weebly.com/uploads/5/0/1/5/50157133/8552535_orig.gif 

What happens is that most people think of AI as "artificial beings with natural intelligence". Most people really doesn't get what AI means.

On the upside, AI implementations nowadays are mixed with several natural intelligence algorithms. For example, predefined waypoints are an artificial way to make bots understand the layout of a level, but the algorithms for choosing which items to get are usually natural � the bot actually analyzes which of the available items he needs the most.

So, machines already have some level of natural analytical intelligence � what they lack is merely natural emotional intelligence. But emotions are bad. 

People used to say back in the day that computers can never do things that they routinely do these days. The reasons given were apparently something to do with it requiring "real intelligence" to perform these tasks.

Instead of creating this "real intelligence" (I use quotes because it is not a term I use myself) to make computers perfrom these tasks, the successful AI researchers invented clever algorithms that could do them. And now the critics turned around and said these tasks don't require intelligence after all, because these algorithms work for them just fine. And algorithms can't have "real intelligence," because reasons.

That's a classic case of moving goalposts. Not that AI proponents in the past were less silly. They forecasted all kinds of crazy shit that just did not happen. But that's why we actually do research: to find out what can be actually made to work.

Given the track record of people talking about AI, I don't really want to get into discussions about this. However, if I may clarify myself, I am calling AlphaGo an AI, because it behaves in a way that would require a lot of applied intelligence if done by a human. It does not otherwise think like a human at all, as far as I know.

When I mentioned Skynet and terminators, I was actually joking. I don't believe an immediate AI takeover and Judgement Day are real concerns even after AlphaGo's victory.

Hope this clears things up :P 

Some people aren't comfortable with the idea of admitting that machines may have some level of real intelligence, so they raise the requirements for what a "real" intelligence should be.

An example is the idea that real intelligence should require figuring out algorithms on its own. However, we humans can't figure all kinds of algorithms on our own either � that's why books and schools exists. So, when we code an algorithm for a program to use, we're teachers for the program, and the program is a student for us. All in a pretty rudimentar level, but still not fake.

Well, that's my philosophy.

"When I mentioned Skynet and terminators, I was actually joking."
;_; 

When are we getting deep enemies and/or bots huh ? :D 

Basing bot behaviours on neural networks / genetic algorithms shouldn't be too hard TBH.

Give the bot some fitness factors, damage done / damage taken / deaths / time since last damage dealt.

Give the bot some basic pathfinding, projectile, and sound identification routines.

Allow the bot to learn against "traditional bots", then against humans.

I linked these not so long ago, but they're fun to watch, so I'll link them again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCurBYI_gY

Literally minutes of learning and entertainment. 

Anyone know how Carmack and iD coded and developed the AI in Q1? Any documentation except for going through the code?

AI navigation is calculated when I compile right, in the bsp step? Perhaps the vis step? 

what ai? 

 

Quake AI. Lol.

"Move towards player. If I hit something that's not player, then move in a random direction for a while, then move towards player again".

There is no pathfinding in Quake. To be honest, the game doesn't really suffer from the lack of it. 

If you want to learn the bread-and-butter of actual game AI, then just grab this book: LINK. It has been my bible since forever, and in my opinion it is (as the vernacular goes) the puppy's privates. 

Looks cool, but as a underage with absolutely no money, I cannot buy it. When I get a job, I'm going into a mathematics and programming job. Then I can buy the book :D 

Also there's JPvW's thesis about developing the Q3 bots: http://www.kbs.twi.tudelft.nl/docs/MSc/2001/Waveren_Jean-Paul_van/thesis.pdf

He's the same guy who did the Omicron bots for Q1: http://mrelusive.com/oldprojects/obots/ObotDoc/index.htm

(and the Gladiator bot for Q2)

So that's pretty interesting stuff IMO. I don't think there's an equivalent level of documentation out there for the other most popular or competent Q1/Q2/Q3 bots. 

Port the bots from CS to Quake.

Professional campers for Quake :)