13/24
> 12/24 > > 11/24 >> >> we were dissociatively on fence between two hard algorithm touching >> tasks, and one appears more inhibited so trying to write a little >> >> we were thinking of making a smarty maze solver, like take general ai >> goal and then put near simple algorithm goal. there was a space where it >> worked out. >> >> maze solvers are classically an agent that tries moving in all >> directions, tracking where it has been so as to not repeat ground. one >> approach is to draw maze on a buffer like the screen in a handfull of >> colors, e.g. EMPTY and WALL and fill in EXPLORING along EMPTY until hit >> dead end of WALL then backtrack replacing EXPLORING with EXPLORED until >> find more EMPTY. very simple algorithm, finds exit by brute force. >> >> but is more interesting to make a combine-parts-to-accomplish-task doer, >> because of executive functioning and goal pursuing inhibitions. >> >> so maybe we could consider holding a GOAL of the AGENT being at the EXIT, >> but the agent starts at the ENTRANCE >> ideally we might need RULES of the maze system so that a path or sequence >> of STEPS can be derived from then GOAL >> these RULES could be based on discrete or rational logic to form >> knowledge or probabilities or metrics >> >> it’s reasonable to imagine spatialness, for example, many rules, or >> storing a map or list of options, but it can also make it hard to stabilize >> (((sadly we realized the basic maze algorithm is itself too complex when >> written :( :( it felt much simpler when imagined. (((maybe a small p—? >> > > but we always like the idea of iterating combinations of available steps, > judging them with metrics and logic, and performing them to meet goals > successfully > because this is _so_ inhibited in us that we would _love_ to have an > external system demonstrating that basic logical goal-meeting can succeed > reliably !!! > so scary: i expect we are hoping to add creativity too so that new goals can be discovered etc or something (ow!!! >
