Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Spectrum Surveys Current Games' AI Technology
orac2 writes " IEEE Spectrum has an article on the AI technologies used in the current crop of video games. State machines, learning algorithms, cheating, smart terrain, etc are discussed. Game developers interviewed include Richard Evans, of Black and White fame, who talks about Lionhead's upcoming Dmitri project and Soren Johnson who created Civ III's AI."
Practice makes perfect. Keep getting your ass kicked -- it's the only way to learn how NOT to get your ass kicked!
evil adrian
Given that this is the IEEE, it was somewhat disappointing to read the following.
Fortunately, most graphics processing had by then moved onto dedicated graphics cards, and CPU resources and memory--already increasing dramatically, thanks to Moore's law--were being freed up for computationally intensive and hitherto impractical tasks, such as better AI.
They make Moore's Law sound as if it is something more than just an observation.
Lack of good AI is perfect for the Doom zombies I think. And when you're confronted with a horde of mindless zombies, the fact remains that there's a horde of 'em, no matter how mindless they are. That's what made the original Doom such a chillingly great game.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Consider this thought experiment: scan a brain on a low level (neurons and their interconnections), and then put the whole thing into a computer (that will be available in say 40 years, according to some estimates; there are also currently quite good models of neuronal behavior, and I don't mean the simplified ANNs we often hear of), and then just run it. It doesn't matter that you don't understand how it works, it works anyways -- proof of concept -- not to say that's the most practical way to do AI, but just to show it's possible.
About Godel -- Godel's theoremis very specific, and says absolutely NOTHING about human intelligence
Like the article linked above says, it has been much abused (Penrose comes to mind). As far as your statement that intelligence is ultimately axiomatic, I don't know what you mean. You say the social sciences would become mathematical scienes: this is in fact not the case simply because social systems are too large, intricate, and complicated in order to consider them on the fundamental level (i.e. physics). It is a practical issue. It is perfecly clear, however, that theoretically social behavior is based on biology which reduces to chemistry which reduces to physics.
> Perhaps we could eventually develop AI to the point where it can simulate lower animal behavior [popsci.com], but the search for machines capable of human levels of thought is ultimately futile.
This comment is no better than the claims of the message I originally replied to.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Why would electrical signals running through a hunk of meat have rights?
places limitations on algebraic systems. One of the things that it does *not* do is place limits on understanding because it imposes no limits on * the number of algebraic systems* you can devise.
If a theorem cannot be expressed in one system you simply make another where it can.
One of the fascinating things about the human mind is its ability to go *beyond* single logical structures and fully understand an infinite number of incompatible algebras.
The problem with developing AI isn't so much that we don't understand the human mind, it's that we *do* understand it to be something well beyond a simple algebraic computer, which at the moment is all computers are. They are *computational* devices with a preprogramed logic. *That* logic is subject to Godel.
Your computer is a giant abacus. Nothing more, nothing less. This says nothing about the possibilities of developing machines that are *not* simply a bank of bistable switches.
Nor is there any axiom which states that intelligence must be *human* in form.
That last point is outrageously important to all sorts of fields.
KFG
AI is a euphemism for "behavior." When I hear people complaining about how games aren't using the latest in AI research, I want to respond "that's because games don't really use AI" at least not what people think of as AI. AI in a typical game is just a list of weighted rules, such as "if the player has a more powerful weapon than character X, make character X run away." When you have lots of such rules and you twiddle with them a lot, then you get so-called AI.
Putting in random factors makes things much harder to pin down. Maybe when a character spots you, there will be a 50% "run or attack" decision. If the decision to run, then you think "Ha, ha, ha, he's running scared!" If the decision is to attack, and he gets you, then you think "Wow, that guy was good." If he attacks and you get him, then you feel like you're doing well.
To a great extent AI is psychological. You read into things what you want.
You're right, practice makes perfect. However, I have to say that the proliferation of cheaters is truly the most annoying thing about gaming.
I apologize in advance if I sound like anyone's dad.
<rant>
I'm not talking about guys who are smooth, have good moves, and use map features well... guys with obvious skillz... No, I'm talking about kiddiez who don't move well, show no strategy, and have 5-6 to 1 kill ratios. If you watch them play in first person mode (ala Counterstrike), it becomes immediately obvious that something ain't right.
Talk about taking the pansy way out... Of course, this may have something to do with our societal tendency towards instant results, since some people cannot defer gratification for even one second (granted, it's a pretty hard concept to teach to a child... but then again, some adults go their entire lives and never learn it). It's why all those instant weight loss pills are such a goldmine, AND it's why people cheat.
Don't work and practice to get better, Oh no, that would require effort... get an aimbot or a wallhack; you too can be instantly L33T!
Feh... learn to take your lumps like a man. If you suck, admit it, and practice.
Ain't no aimbot in the game of life.
</rant>
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Some time after getting Unreal Tournament 2003, I set out to appraise its AI. I decided to set up a game in which it couldn't cheat; I made a one-on-one game, on the map DM-Gael (a small, open map, so while the bot may always know the player's location, also vise versa), and with rocket launchers only (so that the bot couldn't do some simple trig to always hit). I set the bot to its highest difficulty, and played.
The bot had some notable weaknesses (it kept getting killed going for the powerup in the center, or while coming up a lift, and never seemed to learn from these mistakes), but did fairly well overall. In the end I won with a substantial, but not overwhelming, margin.
So, I said, the AI had failed the test: given a fair match, on its most difficult settings, it lost. But then I realized, I had a lot of fun administering it. Then I realized that the point of an AI isn't to beat the player, but to be fun to play against; whether it wins or loses really doesn't matter.
Oh yes, I love these little "thought experiments." Propose a means to devise an electronic circuit that behaves exactly like a neuron, then I will take your little argument seriously.
Remember, Newtonians felt that the whole of the universe could be described if you could only write the state down of everything in it. Then came Quantum Theory and opps, all of that went out the window.
What makes a neuron a neuron is that it is, well, a neuron. Take your philosophy 101 (Denet's "Brain in a Vat" article anyone?) and stuff it.
The middle mind speaks!
By the looks of it, we still have some way to go until AI in games reaches the 'good enough' stage.
Good enough for what? For us to stop speaking and caring about it I guess.
When that happens, we'll have 'Invisible AI'* that just works, and game producers can no longer use it as a selling point.
Of course, I guess that won't happen anytime soon, and I can already see hardware manufacturers making AI-accelerator cards, with built-in multi-processors and neural net chips, to fit next to your graphics card. The 'Intel Inside' logo will gain a whole new meaning...
* - Yes, I'm adapting Don Norman's Invisible Computer term.
No an AI will not be considered alive until it can successfully judge a turing test
I never understand requirements like this; you're putting the mark way higher than you do for humans, or other life forms.
People (who knew nothing about AI) have been fooled in Turing tests by the likes of Eliza. And you're saying those people aren't even alive?
If you assume all adult humans are intelligent and alive, you can't make a test for intelligence that excludes some adult humans.
Note that the Turing test is a sufficient, but not necessary test for intelligence, as proposed by Turing. That means that he would consider a computer that passed it certainly intelligent, but it does not mean that "an AI will not be considered alive until it can pass a Turing test" - it may be considered intelligent for other reasons.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.