Do NPCs have any kind of awareness?

[DudeistBelieve]

I know this is madness, but it's something I think about when I'm driving on the sidewalks in GTA: Online.

Those random pedestrians, okay they're not smart enough that they have full rich lives, but they are smart enough to run away from guy lobbing molotov cocktails.

you wouldn't say they're alive in any real sense, would you?

I mean they cease to exist the moment the player leaves the area... which kinda makes me think of that one Doctor Who episode, where Donna Noble is trapped in VR land. she has her two virtual children, and her son starts to get scared by the end. He's at least self-aware enough to comment "But mommy, when you're not paying attention to us, it's like we aren't even here" because they very much aren't being used by the program unless they are interacting with Donna.

Don't think of me as Daft, I'm not seriously suggesting they're as alive as we are... just on a strange sense, aren't they?

 

[Recusant]

Oh, come now- if reality was that great, we wouldn't have video games to help us escape from it, right? Likewise, if sanity was all it cracked up to be, we wouldn't have madness to make for more interesting discussions. Interesting discussions are not something to be afraid of.

Now then, you seem to be answering your own question- you say "they cease to exist the moment the player leaves the area". I'm detecting, though, that you're unsatisfied with that answer- as you should be. It contains two assumptions that I think you should reanalyze: firstly, that not being rendered to reduce requirements means a cessation of existence (you don't cease to exist when you fall asleep, right? Would that change if the computer was outside of your head?) and secondly, that an existence's brevity and fragility means it's not "real". Mayflies live only one day, and are so flimsy that you could accidentally kill one without even realizing it; they are most definitely alive. The life they live is brief, devoid of inherent higher meaning other than to serve as targets for mysterious interloping gods to kill or avoid killing, but that doesn't make them any less alive.

But life is one thing, awareness is another. Yes, they have some degree of self-preservation in their behavior, and if we change our perception that the distinction between evolutionary programming and computer programming is qualitatively different, we can see a similarity there. But consciousness, as it's popularly perceived, requires more than just life, it requires an ability to countermand that programming and work against it. The pedestrians may run away, screaming; they may panic, collapse, and get run over; they may draw a weapon and start shooting at you, but they're only doing what they're programmed to do.

So are they alive? Sure, in a way. Are they aware? No, I wouldn't say so.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

No, of course not, not in any sense at all. This is like asking if a puppet is alive. It's an image of a human that appears to act of its own volition.

NPCs are images on a screen that are there because some lines of code said so and 'react' in ways determined by lines of code.

This is like asking if a choose your own adventure book is alive because it 'reacts'. It's just a fancied up choose your own adventure with computer images instead of imagination providing the visuals.

 

[Zhukov]

And my toaster is smart enough to know to stop toasting after however many minutes it's set to.

The day may come when AI becomes complex enough for me to start thinking about it as somehow alive, but that day is a long way off.

I doubt the thought would even have occurred to you if NPCs didn't visually resemble people or other living things.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm going to say "no", or at least "not yet". One would then have to ask how advanced a computer AI would be for them to become real...at which point does it become immoral to use them as NPCs?

 

[Saelune]

Not 100% the same, but I think Ikea made a good comment on this.


Ultimately though, this discussion will be more relevant when actual AI is created, then concerns can be raised about the morality of killing synthetic beings.

 

[FalloutJack]

Tell me, is this because you were watching Wreck-It Ralph or Overlord?

 

[Bobular]

Oh, come now- if reality was that great, we wouldn't have video games to help us escape from it, right? Likewise, if sanity was all it cracked up to be, we wouldn't have madness to make for more interesting discussions. Interesting discussions are not something to be afraid of.

Now then, you seem to be answering your own question- you say "they cease to exist the moment the player leaves the area". I'm detecting, though, that you're unsatisfied with that answer- as you should be. It contains two assumptions that I think you should reanalyze: firstly, that not being rendered to reduce requirements means a cessation of existence (you don't cease to exist when you fall asleep, right? Would that change if the computer was outside of your head?) and secondly, that an existence's brevity and fragility means it's not "real". Mayflies live only one day, and are so flimsy that you could accidentally kill one without even realizing it; they are most definitely alive. The life they live is brief, devoid of inherent higher meaning other than to serve as targets for mysterious interloping gods to kill or avoid killing, but that doesn't make them any less alive.

But life is one thing, awareness is another. Yes, they have some degree of self-preservation in their behavior, and if we change our perception that the distinction between evolutionary programming and computer programming is qualitatively different, we can see a similarity there. But consciousness, as it's popularly perceived, requires more than just life, it requires an ability to countermand that programming and work against it. The pedestrians may run away, screaming; they may panic, collapse, and get run over; they may draw a weapon and start shooting at you, but they're only doing what they're programmed to do.

So are they alive? Sure, in a way. Are they aware? No, I wouldn't say so.

I'd like to ask, at what point does it go from just being programming to being aware? Most people, I believe, would agree that at some point we'll have AI that can be classed as 'alive', but even if it is fully able to think for its self that's only because it was programed to be able to think for its self.

I'd say you can probably make the argument that current programs can be about as alive as bacteria or viruses as they do their one purpose and that is it. The only actual difference I can see between a virus and a computer virus is that one is organic and one is digital.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Growing up I occasionally entertained the notion that all video game characters were part of a vast overarching conflict in a digital multiverse. Every time someone respawned or reloaded back into the world it was a different being taking over from their fallen comrade for the sake of the war effort. In light of that, the OP's theorizing isn't far-fetched at all.

Deep down we all know it's just a cloud of ones and zeros, but our human urge to try and make sense of things can result in us trying to find meaning where there is none.

Spoiler: TRIGGER WARNING

Just look at Anita Sarkeesian
​

 

[default]

Interesting thing to talk about. In a way NPCs are virtual beings, but they are completely limited to the extremely small selection of reactions to stimuli they have been programmed with. They can't make their own decisions beyond what has been defined for them in a logic chain or a random event generator.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Interesting thing to talk about. In a way NPCs are virtual beings, but they are completely limited to the extremely small selection of reactions to stimuli they have been programmed with. They can't make their own decisions beyond what has been defined for them in a logic chain or a random event generator.

I mean in my own brain, am I making any choices really or am I just reacting to a series of chemical reactions going off in my head?

Tell me, is this because you were watching Wreck-It Ralph or Overlord?

Just doing the typical mass murder spree in GTAV and questioning my own ethics of "well they're not real people, so this is okay"

I'd have to imagine at some point, it really really wont be okay. Which will make indulging in our darker natures impossible.

Which sounds like a bunch of SJW nonsense, but I'm also a person that will capture bugs in my house and put them outside because Life is something I value.

No, of course not, not in any sense at all. This is like asking if a puppet is alive. It's an image of a human that appears to act of its own volition.

NPCs are images on a screen that are there because some lines of code said so and 'react' in ways determined by lines of code.

This is like asking if a choose your own adventure book is alive because it 'reacts'. It's just a fancied up choose your own adventure with computer images instead of imagination providing the visuals.

But the puppet in this scenario is the player character, because puppets are controlled.

Nothing controls the A.I. in these NPCs, it's just the A.I. and yes they're reacting to stimuli in their environment with 1s and 0s, but as I said earlier... don't we kind of? The very emotion we call love is...

well Ill let Rick explain it:

 

[default]

Interesting thing to talk about. In a way NPCs are virtual beings, but they are completely limited to the extremely small selection of reactions to stimuli they have been programmed with. They can't make their own decisions beyond what has been defined for them in a logic chain or a random event generator.

I mean in my own brain, am I making any choices really or am I just reacting to a series of chemical reactions going off in my head?

Technically you are, but it's more complex than that. You have the ability to remember experiences and learn and make decisions based off those experiences (i.e, I want to go for a walk today, or I feel like watching this film instead of this film). NPCs for the most part don't, and even if they do 'learn' it's based on a very strict artificial set of rules.

NPCs also aren't aware of themselves, as far as we know. They've never indicated as such, but maybe they just don't have the tools to do so. Maybe they're really screaming at us from behind their texture-wrapped eyes, trapped in these hollow little worlds we put them in.

 

[lacktheknack]

As someone who has programmed AI: No. No they are not. Even the most intelligent NPC is just a masterfully woven onesie with about a quarter of a skeleton inside.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I think you need to slow down your weed consumption, Dude.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Have you ever engaged in a conversation tree with ANY video game character?! None of them are aware of anything!
No matter how many times you click on her, Tali will never say anything new.

 

[springheeljack]

My Sims that I created better be alive because they are living much better lives then me! Those smug bastards I made you and I directed you to a bathroom before you pissed yourself

 

[Recusant]

I'd like to ask, at what point does it go from just being programming to being aware? Most people, I believe, would agree that at some point we'll have AI that can be classed as 'alive', but even if it is fully able to think for its self that's only because it was programed to be able to think for its self.

Why does it matter why it can think? That it can think is the critical point. Humans can only think because evolution programmed us to (well, barring divine intervention, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion). Their creation was deliberate, ours more-or-less accidental; how is that qualitatively different?

 

[Fox12]

No. They're just lines of code in a computer reacting to coded stimuli. Imagine the lovecraftian horror that would exist, though, if they were self aware, and a glitch happened. I was playing Saints Row 3, and suddenly everybody had sixteen foot long arms, and massive heads. Pretty horrifying.

I get what you're trying to say, though. It reminds me of Undertale. The AI obviously aren't self aware, but the characters in the story are written as if they were. It gets pretty surreal towards the end of the genocide route. It reminds me of floweys dialogue at the end, where he describes his ability to save the game and go back in time:

Spoiler

At first I used my powers for good. I was friends with everyone. I solved all of their problems flawlessly. Their companionship was amusing. As time repeated, people became predictable. What would this person do if I did this? What if indidnthis? Once you know the answer, that's it. That's all they are. It all started because I was curious. What would happen if I killed them? I don't like this. I'm just doing it because I had to know. Hahah! What an excuse!"