CAN ANYONE ADD IMAGES??? Subh 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so we can know who you are. ;)
Anyway - I might do this tomorrow... but are images really necessary? They wouldn't be bad though. :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

But what images could you have?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A sample script/ a running program image?Subh 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I know an artificial intelligence project, and my own, more flexible one that can perfect itself longer, and break out of loops. Learning AIs, too.
XComputers (talk | contribs) 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A landfill in southern Nevada

OK, I LOLed at that. But is that really the way we write things here?

I suppose something funny never hurt anyone. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty funny, but I think writing on the wiki shouldn't be so colloquial. I'm for removing, but that's just my vote.
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think giving little jokes in images (like "Scratch Wiki " and "pwnz" in an example for the Join ()() block) is okay, but this case might be a little too much? xD
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok... I guess I'll have to explain that one. Well, it's basically the words of one of my friends, which I thought might fit well. He was telling me about his opinion on irobot (the movie), and spoke that phrase. In retrospect, that may have been a bad decision, so if you feel that it's not ok, go ahead. Though in my opinion, a little humor can't hurt, rather might make the Wiki friendlier-sounding. Think about it: I think we have more writers than readers.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 12:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think we have more readers. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. The extra humour that people understand helps to keep the reader interested
GameCentral (talk | contribs) 22:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It may get the point across, but it's quite informal :/. We want the content to be simple. What if you were foreign, not natively english and you were confused by the phrase? I think there's a better way to get the point across...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Instead of sitting here saying how we shouldn't have it, we should just change it! So that's what I did.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops lol.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Game Trees

I noticed that, while recursive functions are mentioned briefly, there isn't anything explicitly on game trees. While admittedly this isn't within the range of commonly-used Scratch scripts, should it still have a wiki page (or at least be mentioned more in-depth-ly here)?

Edit: to be more clear: should Game Trees be mentioned by name with an in-depth look at how they function, their limitations, etc. If so, should that be here or on another page?
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 00:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and add a section on it. We can always remove it if necessary. If you really want to go in depth consider writing a tutorial on it.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 01:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Umm, what's a game tree? ^^
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Try using Wikipedia.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.
Sounds like a cool article, MGN!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and added!
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 19:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect learning AIs

There should be a section for this.
XComputers (talk | contribs) 18:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What is a "perfect learning AI"? Are you referring to neural networks?
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 18:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
There should be more detail. More options. More ideas.
XComputers (talk | contribs) 04:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Poor bullet point form

(in this section)

This section uses poor bullet point form. If sub-bullets are made, they should be at least two. What I'm saying is I think this:

  • 1
  • 2
    • 2.1
      • 2.1.1
      • 2.1.2
      • 2.1.3

should be changed to this:

  • 1
  • 2
    • 2.1
    • 2.2
    • 2.3

I forget what the actual lists contained, but I know that item 2 only has one sub-bullet, and each bullet should either have two or more sub-bullets, or none at all.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense if you put the sub-bullet in the main bullet, but then the (example) header might be for color and all of a sudden you have color and shape. It would be like this:

color

  • red
    • square
      • right
      • up
      • down
  • green
    • triangle
      • up
      • down
      • left
I'm confused... :'(
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I just think that this:
  • If position is tied, won, or lost, return tied, won, or lost and the board
  • Otherwise:
    • Iterating through each continuation of the game for the player:
      • If the best move for the other player results in a loss for him, return "Win" and the continued position
      • If the best move for the other player results in a tie for him, return "Tie" and the continued position
      • If the best move for the other player results in a win for him, return "Loss" and the continued position

should be changed to something like this:

  • If position is tied, won, or lost, return tied, won, or lost and the board
  • Otherwise, iterating through each continuation of the game for the player:
    • If the best move for the other player results in a loss for him, return "Win" and the continued position
    • If the best move for the other player results in a tie for him, return "Tie" and the continued position
    • If the best move for the other player results in a win for him, return "Loss" and the continued position

It just feels awkward going from 1, 2, then to 2.1, and THEN already to 2.1.1, and then 2.1.2 and to 2.1.3 without having any 2.2.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It messes up topics/categories found in a certain area on the page.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Above you have colors. Then they're subdivided into shapes. Then subdivided again into directions. The blue is messed up like how you are saying. Now you have a shape in the color area.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to explain it, but I know that this combining works better on some bulleted lists than on others. Like the one on this page, like how I said it should be changed. And how does what mess up topics/categories?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In my example it goes color-shape-direction, but at one point it goes color and shape-direction which now messes it up. You would have to change the title of the area to implement this.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh... I guess your (original) example worked because there were more than one 2nd-level bullet, even if each 1st level bullet had only one 2nd level bullet. But in the example on the page, there is only one 2nd-level bullet, so it should be merged with the enclosing 1st-level bullet.

new version

I made a new version of Agent White here. Mine is a little different. Should it be added to the article?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Since it doesn't have many views and was only recently uploaded, it's not really notable enough to add, IMO.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's been a while and has gained enough views I added it in Other AIs.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide other examples of this type of AI? Also, I don't really understand how it works differently (or really how it works in general) from what you've added to the article. Could you please elaborate, at least, if we're going to keep it?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur with veggie. Is there a specific type of AI that it exemplifies?
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 00:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it finds it's own path without any memory or sensing except running into walls.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
What type of AI is that, though?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Kind of like a Guess and Check or Thinking AI where the AI has a mind of it's own and makes decisions based off of the data it receives. Whatever category that would fall into.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Scripts

This article needs scripts.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Difference between perfect and optimal AIs?

In the Wiki article, it says that one is impossible to make, and the other is not, but they seem to be identical in their descriptions.
Jokebookservice1 (talk | contribs) 16:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Further, I feel the "Optimal AI" section is not true: consider a game with a small set of positions (for example, tic-tac-toe). One can simply write a look-up table to make sure the AI can react to every single board.
Why is this not an "Optimal AI" (since apparently they do not exist).
Jokebookservice1 (talk | contribs) 19:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, it looks like it can be improved upon. Knock yourself out!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)