YEs this is all good but who determines whether something is "good" or "bad"? That's the interesting part. Who sets the goals? And how do they score an intermediate situation on the way to achieving them?
Don't get me wrong, a machine can achieve goals is really, really useful. After all, chess playing programs use the AlphaBeta algorithm to prune future positions intelligently, but to score the positions they still need human input. It may be, however, that they infer their OWN rules from past positions, with absolutely no human input. Then it becomes interesting. Still, the initial rules of the chess game have to be set down.
So while this is intelligence, this is not sentience.
I assume it gets reward for getting points in the pacman game (eating dots and ghosts) and presumably loses them if it dies or loses the game. There might also be a time factor involved so it doesn't waste time.
I'm really not entirely sure how it's decision making process works and I'm really curious to know. Because simulating every possibility would be ridiculous, but trying to predict the distant future based on some small action that happens in the present is also really difficult.
>So while this is intelligence, this is not sentience.
No one is claiming it is, and "sentience" is a really dubious concept itself.
Don't get me wrong, a machine can achieve goals is really, really useful. After all, chess playing programs use the AlphaBeta algorithm to prune future positions intelligently, but to score the positions they still need human input. It may be, however, that they infer their OWN rules from past positions, with absolutely no human input. Then it becomes interesting. Still, the initial rules of the chess game have to be set down.
So while this is intelligence, this is not sentience.