Talk:Intelligent agent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Agent environment)

Comments merged from Agent Environment[edit]

Merge[edit]

Consider merging Intelligent agents into this page. It focuses on software "bots," for the most part, so the layout of this article will need reworked to properly incorporate it. --Schultz.Ryan 03:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

definitely merge this article into intelligent agents and move to intelligent agent -- the term "artificial intelligence agent" was made up by User:Melody on 10 august 2003, while trying to come to terms with this text from agent: "Agents generally --and including some software agents-- have the ability to learn and to reason, logically or otherwise. They may discover facts and rules about the world or about others and may assess and argue these truths and may alter their ontology". The term is used nowhere in academia, but has spread thru the GFDL corpus (wikipedia mirrors) -- 70.29.131.204 03:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
re bots: they're all bots; but in fact, the text could be properly divided into sections for learning agents and non-learning ones. Also, as we approach the technological singularity we learn how to learn -- ie: meta-learning, (which in humans is temporal lobe based ithink) and is a hallmark of sentience. -- 70.29.131.204 04:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any links to people who are doing research in this field?? If so they should be posted also.

Page move[edit]

I suggest that this article be edited in any of the following ways:

  • renamed to agent environment since this is what the greater part of this article is abount
  • merged with software agent since it applies to them in general
  • deleted since as mentioned above this naming is wrong and the topic is covered elsewhere

See intelligent agent --moxon 09:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it[edit]

I suggest keeping this article separate from intelligent agent. Typically, in agents research, these things are thought separatelly. The features of artificial environemtns mentioned here are equally as important as features as agents, in fact, their are accepted generally as a de facto definitions of properties of artificial environemnts. --User:Cyril2 14:33, 08 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"agents" / merge[edit]

re merge: Due to the extensive rework required for the suggested merger of the mentioned atricles, I took the libirty to create this article from scratch. As stated in their discussions artificial intelligence agent focuses on "agent environments" and intelligent agents on bot-type software agents. I suggest that these articles be renamed/merged as such. I do however invite the authors of those articles to contribute to this new article where appropriate. Please comment. --moxon 10:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience there are three communities who claim the word "agent":

  • the animat community, who use the word to refer to either robots or animals (though they sometimes will accept VR agents these days)
  • the agent-based modelling people, who are mostly social scientists and use fairly trivial agents to do fairly cool research.
  • the software agent people, who are basically logicians and software engineers, but do use (neat) AI and are also the most organized.

I'm not sure this article is going to go anywhere if it doesn't clearly engage with at least one of those communities. Though there are some other people who use agent as you do, notably Russel & Norvig. That is, sort of as a generic expression for a strong AI system with no particular attachment to a research community.--81.6.234.170 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pls. see my comment there. superseded. Steipe (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different types of intelligent agents not related[edit]

If it is interactive and adaptive, IMO it is an IA --moxon 12:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The references on this page need a serious review! The first reference (Kasavbov) does not contain any of the information stated on the page. The relevant information might be somewhere else in the journal but it is not in the Introduction (which is referenced). Further there are hyperlinks to references 3 and 4 that take you nowhere since references 3 and 4 don´t exist. --Shadowselfs 07:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be divided into two articles[edit]

There should be (at least) two separed articles:"Intelligent agent" and "Intelligent agent(computer science)" Current article is confusing and if no-one objects I will create the second article and move half of the text there.82.130.8.142 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think this article should be a disambiguation page, and I think there should be two articles, should be called:
Here's my new idea. Let this article be about intelligent agents or rational agents as defined by Russell & Norvig (merging in agent environment). Cover "intelligent software agents" in software agent. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete[edit]

I am hoping to merge rational agent, intelligent agent and agent environment into a single article, since they all seem to be based on chapter 2 of Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2.

This would create a nice medium-sized article on a single topic from a major source. (So we can be sure how the topic is defined, that it is notable, and that the material is both relevant and verified). Other related ideas (such as software agents with artificial intelligence, or agent (economics) can be covered in other articles, and the intro of intelligent agent will guide you there.

It seems this merge has a long history. Hopefully this will sort it out. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Rational agent, see my notes at Talk:Rational agent ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent agents should not be part (in the Scope of?) of Robotics[edit]

The research on Intelligent Agents is not a subpart of robotics, althought some work of robotic is inspired by the work on Intelligent Agents. Actually, research on Intelligent Agents can be rather be considered as a sub-part of the research conducted on Software agents.

Exemple of group conducting research in this area:

Other terms to be added:

  • believable agents
  • emboddied agents (or interface agents).
    • Note: only how the agents appear to the users via artificial characters
  • cognitive agents
  • reactive agents —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeth (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other reference:

Nabeth (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several definitions of "intelligent agent" being used, I think. The first paragraph of this article is based on Russell and Norvig (2003), the standard AI textbook. The next couple of paragraphs attempt (poorly, I admit) to grant some space to some of the other definitions in use. The rest of the article I can't vouch for. This is an issue with other articles as well, such as software agent, etc.
As I just posted over at software agent, I think what is needed is some more authoritative sources that give an overview of the uses of the term "intelligent agent" (and autonomous agent, software agent, etc). I think CS textbooks are the best source, since it is their job to be general. I think the publications of particular institutions or researchers are a poor source, since they tend to enforce a particular definition, one that might not be used by everyone. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the rest of the article and added footnotes to tie each section derived from Russell and Norvig to their textbook. The text from other sources seems very poor and scattershot to me and has been placed in separate sections of the article. Hopefully an editor with a more comprehensive knowledge of this subject can improve these sections. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple intelligent agent image[edit]

Um that simple intelligent agent image makes no sense. How can you have a if then condition which is unlinked to the original perception still influence the action? Shouldn't you have sensor "what is the environment like now" go into the agent, then the agent considers "if then" conditions then submit that to the "action to be taken" then to the "actuators" who send it back to the environment and the system? Sorry i don't normally take time doing anything in wikipedia except for reading it so i don't know how to edit the discussion area properly.. Thanks, skythra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is meant is that the decision taken by the box 'action to be done' uses the information from the boxes that point towards it, so 'what the world is like right now' and 'condition-action (if-then) rules'. In that sense, the rules do use information of the perceptions that have been done. - Simeon (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content[edit]

I spotted a major removal of content a while ago: [1] Is it a good idea to reinsert it? Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Shah[edit]

Who is Kunal Shah? There's a mention to this person in the end of the page and nothing else... Greynodes (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Percept vs. Precept[edit]

The article talks about percepts, but the diagrams label them precepts (which confusingly means rules). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.201 (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"For this reason, intelligent agents are sometimes called abstract intelligent agents (AIA)"[edit]

The citation needed tag apparently has been affixed to this claim since October 2010. From Google, I can only find this source using the term: http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/wwwerg26701/gad-zyt.htm. Is this an adequate source? Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intelligent agent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut[edit]

This was unsourced, WP:UNDUE weight, and not on topic. This is about Friendly AI or Machine ethics, not intelligent agents. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In his book, Superhuman Creators, Al Byrd describes the conceptual architecture for an artificial agent called an Accountable Conscientious Entity (ACE). An ACE is a goal-oriented AI system that has an autobiographical memory of its past and present, and its plans for the future, which allows it to constrain and justify its behavior in a socially acceptable manner, in both real and imagined situations. The author argues that an entity with this architecture will always be accountable for its behavior, and will act in a conscientious manner.

This is off topic. This about Artificial intelligence § Risks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As intelligent agents become more popular, there are increasing legal risks involved.[1]: 815 

References

  1. ^ Van Loo, Rory (2019-03-01). "Digital Market Perfection". Michigan Law Review. 117 (5): 815.

As a definition of artificial intelligence[edit]

This section, which talks about defining artificial intelligence as the study of intelligent agents, mostly contains definitions of intelligent agents, plus a reference to one paper that defines AI this way.

I don't think this is a common definition for AI. A lot of systems of interest, e.g. computer vision systems or language models, are generally not considered agents. Additionally, the Advantages section is not really sourced, and I'm not sure it's a generally held view. MattF (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MattF: I agree that "one paper" would be far from reliable when it comes to the definition of AI. There are probably ten thousand such papers.
However, it's not one paper, it's the leading AI textbook, Russell and Norvig (2003). They wrote "the whole-agent view is now widely accepted in the field." (p. 50) Other textbooks written around that time also used the definition, and could be added as additional citations.
Having said that, I agree with you that it no longer seems relevant in 2023. There was a paradigm shift during the 90s and this "intelligent agent definition" was one way of formalizing the new paradigm. So, in 2003, this was still a big deal, but now, not so much.
(In my view, they key component of the shift was the adoption of formal "goals" / "objective functions" / "utility functions" / "policies". These mathematical measures were mostly unheard of in the 80s, but by the 2000s they were common. This is also part of the shift away from knowledge and reasoning and towards decision making and learning.)
Having said that, the section needs work:
  • We need to update the source to Russell & Norvig 2021, and find out how far they've backed down from it or refined it.
  • I would cut the two additional paragraphs, with the citations to individual papers or newspapers. I would cut them as "undue weight": they are just examples of the 10,000 papers I mentioned earlier.
  • The philosophy section should be cut down to just what we find in R&N 2021. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing reference to Computer Science field[edit]

I find it really odd to see a whole page about intelligent agents and not one reference of the field behind its development, Computer Science. 2001:8A0:786B:F300:C94B:61EF:B3C6:C5EF (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuniyal to toda chutiya hai kya[edit]

Kuniyal to toda chutiya hai kya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.48.98 (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_agent&oldid=1207722804"