Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game AI Pro

gameaipro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Game AI Pro

#51

Post by grawprog »

joenot443 wrote: post #39
grawprog wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is funny how willing computer scientists are to want to use a duct tape analogy. I'm not a computer scientist. I'm just going off of the way I learn and the way i've watched other people learn or the way i've seen people learn while i've been teaching them or training them. That and the general way everything kind of works. As amazing as everything in the world seems, when you break everything down to the smalles…

> we just keep making the same music over and over and over again, yet we still find new and novel ways to make it sound different and new to the point where most people don't realize they've been listening to the same few songs in new forms for the last 100 years or so at least. What do you mean by this? Oftentimes I see people reaching the conclusion that because a lot of modern music is built around the same major…

>a lot of modern music is built around the same major scales and largely homogenous chord progressions, it must be the same, but this simply isn't the case.

But it is, to the point where there's songs I learn only somewhat and i'll get confused to which lyrics are which and I'll sing a mix of the two songs when playing them, imagine and no woman no cry jump are two it happens to me with all the time. Same with truly madly deeply and kryptonite oddly enough. Then there's the whole pachabel's canon meme which is entirely true. There's a few songs, the most recent is some maroon 5 and i think a jonas brother's song which I was confused as hell as to why I liked until I realized they're just another rework of canon.

That's not even getting started on the direct ripoffs such as the 1000'@ of songs based on the Amen break or the thousands of songs that are basically a simple 8 or 12 bar blues progression or the tangled web of constant remakes that is reggae and dancehall and every song that lifts a bassline or melody from them without credit all the way up to such obscure things as the friendly neighbours tune from earthbound being a relick of the real rock riddim.

Re: Game AI Pro

#52

Post by nwienert »

dkersten wrote: post #41
nwienert wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sleights of hand are not proof the brain is failing in any way. That our visual processing is limited is not a sign that the brain is somehow taping together systems in poor ways. Cognitive biases were also incredibly exaggerated and if you’ve read into the replication crisis and various pushback Kahneman has gotten on his studies you’ll find much of what we call cognitive bias was wrong or exaggerated. That we figur…

> Sleights of hand are not proof the brain is failing in any way You missed the point of what I was saying, which is that because of my interest in sleight of hand, I spend a lot of time reading and watching different material on "magic", the book Sleights of Mind being such material. Its not about sleight of hand, but rather that it's easy to trick the mind into believing things. Also, most sleight of hand isn't rea…

I definitely understood that, I just don’t find it convincing. The pattern matching is as good as it can be, and as suited to survival as can be, and kludgy is never the term I’d use for that. It’s just an oddly negative way to frame the most competent and complex thing we don’t understand yet.

Re: Game AI Pro

#53

Post by Namrog84 »

Buttons840 wrote: post #28

I've been thinking a lot about trying to make an AI for a turn based 4X game. I believe an AI that could defeat the strongest human players in (for example) Civilization would be more impressive than AlphaStar and the Dota AIs. I think it might give the gaming industry a kick in the pants to start utilizing more advance AI techniques in general, since it seems almost all discussions of strong AI in games are dominate…

> After strong AIs are common, we can persue the even more interesting task of dumbing them down in fun ways

An artificially handicapped or limited smart ai in video games is often obvious and not fun.

Re: Game AI Pro

#54

Post by SergeAx »

SloopJon wrote: post #42
SergeAx wrote: post #36

Shouldn't it have (2017) in title?

"All chapters are available to download as of September 2019."

As Hacker News is mostly informational resource, it is important when the information was produced, not when it became free of charge.

Re: Game AI Pro

#55

Post by navjack27 »

nwienert wrote: post #26
robotresearcher wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I bet the brain is just as elegant and powerful as it has to be to do the incredible complex things we do But no more than that. Which is what Minsky was saying.

Not at all. Kludge being the operative word. I claim the brain is fantastically not kludgy. It has incredibly flexibility, adaptiveness and no duct tape or shortcuts. It “has to be” incredibly good at so many things - it’s basically the perfect general computation machine. It “has to be” not kludgy. Minsky is part of an era where scientists were all about showing how humans were easily fallible and much of that was d…

It's not kludgey until it's "certain" about something and then it just offloads to past experience reaching temporal projections.

Re: Game AI Pro

#56

Post by Buttons840 »

Namrog84 wrote: post #53
Buttons840 wrote: post #28

I've been thinking a lot about trying to make an AI for a turn based 4X game. I believe an AI that could defeat the strongest human players in (for example) Civilization would be more impressive than AlphaStar and the Dota AIs. I think it might give the gaming industry a kick in the pants to start utilizing more advance AI techniques in general, since it seems almost all discussions of strong AI in games are dominate…

> After strong AIs are common, we can persue the even more interesting task of dumbing them down in fun ways An artificially handicapped or limited smart ai in video games is often obvious and not fun.

I don't know about that, I much prefer playing chess video games against an artificially limited AI. Granted you did say "often", and I agree this is the exception.

Starting with an AI that is weaker than human players, and then artificially limiting it even further does not produce a great AI. Although, some players still choose to play against these easiest of AIs.

I believe starting with an AI that is far stronger than any human, and then artificially limiting it will be fun. This is a fundamentally different situation. This is like a chess engine, no human can hope to win without some artificial limitations on the AI. This is a type of AI we have never experience outside of a few abstract board games like chess. I look forward to seeing AIs like this come to 4X style games such as Civilization.

Re: Game AI Pro

#57

Post by runevault »

KenanSulayman wrote: post #34

Is this directly from the authors? If yes, I'm a bit shocked given the prices for the book when searching for ed 1, ed 2 and ed 3 on Google. Please add a donation button to the site. I just finished the first four sections and I love it. Thanks a lot!

They always do this when the next version of the book is close to coming out. The first 2 have been available for free for a while. It is expected with this that the 4th is coming soon.

Re: Game AI Pro

#58

Post by nwienert »

navjack27 wrote: post #55
nwienert wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Kludge being the operative word. I claim the brain is fantastically not kludgy. It has incredibly flexibility, adaptiveness and no duct tape or shortcuts. It “has to be” incredibly good at so many things - it’s basically the perfect general computation machine. It “has to be” not kludgy. Minsky is part of an era where scientists were all about showing how humans were easily fallible and much of that was d…

It's not kludgey until it's "certain" about something and then it just offloads to past experience reaching temporal projections.

Sounds like the right way to do things. I mean people aren’t perfectly intelligent, but being a bit stubborn about things even when you’re wrong sounds like a safe strategy in world of incomplete information. If people were less wrong-headed-confident they may not defend important other things they don’t know 100% to be right.

It’s a heuristic that can be wrong, but the heuristic itself isn’t kludgy just the occasional specific use case can be wrong.

Here’s an analogy: any individual ant does many things that look stupid for its own survival. But would you call the ants thinking “kludgy”?

Re: Game AI Pro

#59

Post by echelon »

echelon wrote: post #46
MAXPOOL wrote: post #5

I am just an NPC until I get coffee. For AI researcher Game AI is like porn. It's cheap tricks and obviously fake but oddly fascinating. Sometimes you find a new trick you want to try in real life. Marvin Minsky once said "I bet the human brain is a kludge." If I had to bet, I would say that human brain is full of dirty tricks, incomplete solutions, shortcuts and artificially limited problem spaces evolved to pick be…

> Marvin Minsky Can we still cite Marvin Minsky in the AI field given the allegations that have arisen regarding his relationship with Epstein and sex trafficking? We should find better luminaries. I'm all for redemption and I hope Stallman comes around and apologizes, but Minsky went to the grave with whatever happened.

Instead of downvoting me without a stated reason, can you provide a refutation? I'm open to changing my mind, but this is where it stands right now. I think we need to choose those we hold in esteem.

Re: Game AI Pro

#60

Post by dkersten »

nwienert wrote: post #52
dkersten wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sleights of hand are not proof the brain is failing in any way You missed the point of what I was saying, which is that because of my interest in sleight of hand, I spend a lot of time reading and watching different material on "magic", the book Sleights of Mind being such material. Its not about sleight of hand, but rather that it's easy to trick the mind into believing things. Also, most sleight of hand isn't rea…

I definitely understood that, I just don’t find it convincing. The pattern matching is as good as it can be, and as suited to survival as can be, and kludgy is never the term I’d use for that. It’s just an oddly negative way to frame the most competent and complex thing we don’t understand yet.

Do you agree that there are shortcuts, though, which often lead to erroneous outcomes? Like I said, I didn’t personally use the word kludge just that I think the brain is taking shortcuts and those shortcuts lead to imperfect decisions/results at times. I do agree that it’s a super complex system which we don’t yet understand, so why kludgeyness that we see may well just be something we don’t see the true nature or reason for yet.
Post reply on HN