RE: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call

Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-26T00:11:13Z

Hans Reiser wrote
> Now it is games that hardware is too slow for. After games, maybe AI
> assistants?.... Will you be saying, "My AI doesn't have enough
> horsepower to run on, its databases are small and out of date, and it is
> providing me worse advice than my wealthy friends get, and providing it
> later."? How much will you pay for a good AI to advise you? (I really
> like my I-Nav GPS adviser in my mini-van.... money well spent....)

Really good AI is predicated on the invention of better algorithms. I do a
bit of work in this area; we're a long way from any useful AI -- unless you
think Microsoft's "Clippy" qualifies. :)

I would love to see "intelligence" in software; IBM's recent "autonomic
computing" initiative is marketing hype for a good idea. Programs (including
Linux!) should be self-diagnosing, fault tolerant, and self-correcting.
We're not there yet on the software side (again).

And "smart AI" may not be something people want. Many people distrust
machines -- and in gaming, a really good AI simply isn't as important (or
desirable) as are pretty graphics (handled by a GPU).

> Ok, you win that one.;-)

Yeah! ;)

> It is interesting that games are the only compelling motivation for
> faster desktop hardware these days. It may be part of why we are in a
> tech bust. When AIs become hardware purchase drivers, there will likely
> be a boom again.

I've worked with several game companies; AI just isn't a priority. Games
need to be "good enough" to challenge average gamers; people who want a real
challenge play online against other humans.

Excellent breast physics (Extreme Beach Volleyball) sells games; a crafty,
hard-to-defeat AI actually turns off casual players and just isn't "sexy".

And now I think we're getting *WAY* off topic. :)

..Scott