MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
John Maxwell wrote:
>>This thread started off with the question for MOO-code bots. Well, I think
>>that approach shouldn't be underestimated if the thing does only little
>>And then goes to sleep for a longer period.
The current Bots we are running at AICore have two modes of operation.
is a regular expression pattern matcher triggered by moo events (anything
invokes the :tell verb). If the left hand side of a rule set is
bot performs a substitute() on a response randomly selected from the
response can also be the result of a verb invoked from the invoked rulle set.
There is also a :lifecycle verb that can be made active for the bot,
provide some degree of autonomous action on the part of the bot. Such
agents should be monitored for '@forked' behaviors.
>A strategy might be: write your bot in MOO-code only if it's
>temporarily active and triggered by MOO events. If the thing is
>intended to run continuously, better to have it exist external
>to the MOO, and to log in as a player.
We are considering moving some of the code found in the markov chainers
and providing 'built-in' support for construction of large sets of
addition, another project at AICore requires an external interface to quintus
prolog, which may provide an interesting new set of built-in calls for
clause grammers and graph unification.
>Most 'pets' and greeting-objects and whatnot do not need to run
>continuously -- just when somebody actually triggers them... so
>there's no need for endlessly-forking objects.
It is worthwhile to allow moo bots to begin a lifecycle as part of a
behavior, providing a more 'life-like' interaction. Yet it is crucial to
that active agent to shut it self down at the end of the interaction.
Subject Index |