Proposal: Artificial Intelligence

Should algorithms that try to fake an intelligent impression with banal functionality behind be part of this new site? I think not since it is a different field and better fits the Game Development site, but we should discuss this and define the scope then.

  • 3
    Where do you draw the line between banal and meaningful functionality? Even a procedural artificial intelligence like simple game AI can approximate or at least emulate true intelligence, if complex enough. Sep 4, 2013 at 3:16
  • @trav1s To define this distinction is a challenge of this proposal, I think.
    – danijar
    Sep 4, 2013 at 9:19
  • @trav1s the line could be that it is 'banal' when it does not have the ability to reason deductivly, after all simple isn't the same as 'banal'. Diffirent requirements could count ass well or in place of this one.
    – Jarno
    Sep 9, 2013 at 18:49
  • 1
    I'd say AI that can learn habits of human players, predict their moves and counteract them pre-emptively (bots in FPS games) is very much on-topic. Fake AI that only follows a strictly reactive algorithm without elements of learning but either strictly deterministically or with use of plain randomness (tic-tac-toe, othello) should be off-topic.
    – SF.
    Jan 4, 2014 at 16:35
  • @SF. This is what I would encourage, too.
    – danijar
    Jan 4, 2014 at 18:32
  • @kenorb, you didn't correct the link. This discussion was about an older proposal, not the current one. You should not change posts about other proposals to look as if they are about another one. If you want a discussion about the issue you should start a new one and just link to this.
    – Kaveh
    Jun 30, 2016 at 8:12

4 Answers 4


Why sould you like to draw any lines here? Artificial Intelligence is about computer based reasoning, Norvig AIMA book includes many problems, algorithms and discussion which could be called "banal" and calling them "not part of AI" would be rather bad idea. In fact, any kind of artificial intelligence question could be more or less fitted to:

  • cross validated
  • stack overflow
  • mathematics
  • robotics
  • game dev
  • cognitive science
  • computational science
  • computer science

IMHO the problem is rather to gather people from this field in one place then actually making borders to differentiate from the above.

  • Why create a new site, then?
    – Gala
    Sep 8, 2013 at 20:21
  • 12
    To bring people from this one particular field, which exists in between all above in one place. I see the reason behind it - as now questions regarding AI are scattered across these sites and get very little attention from actual experts, who also visit just a subset of these. Additionally - on each site these questions are tagged in a different way, so it is impossible to track them. Unification (new site) would make all of it much easier (and in fact - possible for the first time)
    – lejlot
    Sep 8, 2013 at 20:43
  • 5
    To be honest, I think that the better way would be to actually support multi-se questions, for things "in between", as well as browsing the "unified" question pool. But as this is much harder (and imho impossible to do here), creation of such new subsites, which cover some interdisciplinary field is required for those interested in this particular subject.
    – lejlot
    Sep 8, 2013 at 20:48
  • 1
    I agree, I think focusing on what other SE sites are is missing the point. This community needs to focus on what AI.SE is. It is not a duplicate of any one SE site. Sep 12, 2013 at 2:10
  • @lejlot Quoted your comment here.
    – kenorb
    Aug 10, 2016 at 10:54

I would hate to see this branch of topics be omitted from this site. That is actually one of the reasons I committed to it. How is that AI any different? It is still a study and implementation of something that performs actions and decisions on its own. They may be scripted in a lot of places, but oftentimes they have to make decisions on regular basis.

As a quick example of why it's okay to be able to have the same topic in two areas is my YouTube channel organization. I have several channels that I monitor, which have information that is related to Game Development, yet at the same time, some of the information they cover during the Game Development is so enlightening in terms of programming knowledge, that I also include that channel in my Programming collection.

Someone who's trying to make a bot could go onto SO, Programmers SE, or Game Development to ask the same question, but why not ask it here instead? This is a site that focuses on AI, so more people with similar ideologies/strategies/techniques/knowledge will have an answer here than someone who's thinking in terms of application development.


The field of artificial intelligence covers basically anything that imitates intelligence (as the name sums up). Even if there aren't necessarily machine learning algorithms involved, this falls under that category. Furthermore, as lejlot and Noobacode said, the point of this site would be to create a group of things in the artificial intelligence field, though many of the questions would not be out of place on other sites.


The new AI site has been launched, so I think this discussion should be refreshed at AI meta.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .