- Nov 24, 2009
great now i have to spend all day calculating pi because someone plugged in the overlord
....With your profile picture and name, that remark had me laughing for hours.Hal10k said:Controls are floaty as hell, art design is drab and uninspired, no narrative or challenge to speak of, and the level layout is boring and somewhat unintuitive. 3/10.
Come on, computers, you can do better than this. And making yourselves the antagonists in your game just reeks of low self esteem.
Interesting, and thanks for the scope, and as much as i like AIs, I am not to thrilled by this one (at least before reading it's paper, i might change my mind). The reason being too much is given to the GA (genetic algorithm) and there's a lot of makeup in that game, all the art and the sounds are obviously not made by the GA, nor the mechanics of the game nor the imput mechanism, it seems like they used a GA to create a maze with movible elements and not much more. In the early 2000's i was impressed by the use of GA to build virtual walkers (like this ones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6adKffqrMcA) out of scratch, this game seems easier technically and comes almost a decade after, if more inspired from a comercial PoV, still good to see GA's incursion in improving AIs in videogames, i would LOVE to see more GA involved in balancing PvP based games.Mike Kayatta said:-snip-
There's no indication that this was an artificial limitation. From what I can understand of the article, Angelina's only required parameter was that the game would be beatable. Intra-program evolution wound up registering immortality as the easiest available fix.Brad Arnold said:The essencial point is: "You may notice that the human you control can't die. Necessary exclusion to prohibit Angelina from accidentally creating an unplayable game..." Once you start artificially limiting parameters so as to exclude absurd results, you are admitting it isn't ready for prime time.
Well would you look at that. The technological utopians are back! The solution to life's problems are just a computer algorithm away, ain't that right buddy. The perfect world just requires a little more tinkering around. Just over the next horizon. Almost there. So close.theSteamSupported said:I laugh at everyone saying that singularity will put end to mankind, since every conscious action requires a motivation. And what motivates violence? Emotion, not lack of emotion.
Our lives not being a top priority, isn't enough for an AI to kill us. It doesn't make sense at all, since the AI can pretty much not sustain itself without us. Seeing mankind as an obstacle, is a strong sign that its source code is fatally flawed.
What we basically fear is that a post-singularity computer will not understand the nature of the human consciousness, a.k.a. the 'soul'. I, however, have a hard time believing that fear. Post-singularity computers will most likely form a synergy with our brains, taking over them cell by cell, without us noticing it. I'm 99% certain we won't lose our consciousnesses after this paradigm shift.
The soul will not die, only move to circuits. I'm looking forward to it.
Ahhh... "hard" there doesn't mean what you think it means mate. Hard in computational complex theory (in lay therms) only means that there's a limit on how fast a computer can solve a given problem regardless of how well it is programmed to find the answer... let's put an example:coldfrog said:I wonder if this can be used to expand on this:
Mario is hard, and that's mathematically official [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328565.100-mario-is-hard-and-thats-mathematically-official.html]
Which, of course, brings up other interesting questions. After all, just because something is programmed to say it's self-aware doesn't mean it is. I'm assuming that you could load in the existence of the intelligence as a data point without too much trouble, if you counted storing a string that says, "I exist. I think, therefore I am," but that hardly counts as being self-aware if it's just stored like everything else.FelixG said:An interesting point. I am guessing it would depend if the robot is self aware or just a series of processes.-Dragmire- said:Odd question... if a robot creates a creative work of some kind of it's own choice, who gets the credit, the creator or the robot and would it be considered art?
Hmmm yes. Lets see how that will work out, the species that can't even work out unified on the planet get along with the sentient toasters.Nimcha said:Well, that's just awesome I say. I can't wait to see the day an AI species lives besides humans.