I'm trying to establish a baseline in order that we can converse on a common level - which, given the language differences, is kind of important - without wasting effort on misunderstandings but thanks for your assumptions and contribution 👍
I'm sure it does, but I'm not looking for what other people think; I'm trying to determine what it is you understand by the term so that we have a common ground on which to converse - as previously stated:
If you're just not interested in the discussion we can skip right past it I guess, but it's all a bit of a waste of everyone's time really.
Believe it or not, in the universe in which we occupy, two truths can exists in a singular space at the same time. It can be an open world where one could drive a car to a track and race said car, or even another car in a regulated race. You guys cannot be this unimaginative and/or open minded. "Old" aint no excuse, either.
Thank you for pointing that out, I believed in the open world but when it came to racing it closed that openness.
A neural network (or artificial neural network) is a computational model that consists of nodes and edges. There are input nodes, fed with data from sensors or with static values; output nodes, with control of various actions the AI can take, in the case of Sophy that includes braking and steering for example; and there are also one or more layers of hidden nodes.
That's not quite how it works. You can't take a neural network and transform it into a set of instructions (if that's what you mean by "self contained model"). What we have on the PS5 is a neural network.
Machine learning is the process by which the neural network is trained. The neural network itself is not machine learning. The fact that Sophy uses a neural network to determine its actions does not imply that it's learning from what it's doing.
I would leave that up to the players. Kind of like how there are lobbies dedicated to car shows, roleplaying ect. For instance imagine a freeway that goes around the entire menu/map. You and a friend can be meet at a designated point and race to another designated point. Maybe even implement waypoints. Yes, you're friend could cheat the whole way but, at that point, thats your fault for having a wack friend. jkjk
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from now. We'll go with an "ehhhhhhhhhhhh fair enough, I guess".
To be fair, there's only really a limited number of ways of doing it... ironically, I suppose
They use ML and then a little bit more ML but it has to be packaged.
That package is the neural network. There's no other way to pack it.
I don't know what you mean by massive simulation machine, but it sounds like you might be confusing the infrastructure used to train the AI at a massive scale with the neural network itself.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Sophy was trained from scratch, just like all neural networks have to be. You can't teach or instruct a neural network to do anything (at least not to any degree of success) without training it. I suppose that if your network is very small and the task you wish to perform is very simple you could make some educated guesses to what the weights and thresholds ought to be, but for those applications it would be easier, faster and better to just write an algorithm.
I don't know if there's a any OW racing game yet, that provides "serious" racing.
Interrogated? Asked what they meant by certain terms, for the purposes of everyone understanding what they're talking about without jargon, in order that there's a common ground not mutated by language differences:
Given that I already explained this, in the post quoted (and pooped upon), and that finding common ground is literally the point of discussion, it'd be nice if you could address why you think this is a Bad Thing that requires this sort of response.
Beamng.drive. You just have to do the work yourself a lot of the time to create events.
Where's the actual discussion on the topic? It's not like you were already discussing Sophy AI and there was some misunderstanding that needed to be sorted out. "A common ground on which to converse"... where was the conversing after they showed that they understood the topic? You were testing someone on their knowledge, and that was the whole discussion, because you dropped it afterwards.
In intervening posts - and you'll notice that some other members were also wondering quite what he meant and were confused by it. After @eran0004 clarified, we're now all at a common place, and there is an ongoing discussion between him and @newmedia_dev on the subject.
No, I was asking what they meant by the terms they used (which are often misused terms) to clarify what they were saying.
Someone posting in English is not necessarily comprehending the same terms in the same way if they are not English - particularly if they are technical terms or jargon. We even see this with British English and US English, never mind someone who is and presents as Swedish (which has a high level of English literacy).
You are welcome to read whatever you want in any manner you desire, but currently you're having a go at me for trying to make sure everyone's speaking about the same thing to keep the discussion at a sensible level without pointless arguments caused by misunderstanding, over someone who had no problem with it whatsoever and clarified their comments without complaint*.
