Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Emergent Intelligence


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
73 replies to this topic

#41 tonyg   Members   -  Reputation: 284

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2004 - 11:57 PM

Where are the moderators when things get to this position?

Sponsor:

#42 Samith   Members   -  Reputation: 2256

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 03:01 AM

Quote:
Original post by Prozak
Well, we could dive into the definitions of EI, but I think i'll stick to my original defenition, that EI is demonstrated by a group of "limited" individuals coming together and solving problems none of them could solve alone.

The triangle army experiment indicates that each triangle came to its own conclusion on how it should operate, its wasnt a communal achievement... and also lets not forget that "breeding" in those digital universes many times means "chaotic cloning" more than anything else...


What, then, is a communal achievement? Groups don't think, individual members of groups think. My triangle armies "thought" and worked together to come to the conclusion that firing everything at a precise angle would be best. And what you said about "chaotic cloning": isn't that basically what breeding in nature is, anyway? In my breeding process, two "parent" triangles would take their genes and randomly mix them to create two "child" triangles. Pretty much just like how it happens in real life. The only thing really different is that there was a cutoff limit for the fitness level for the triangles to be able to breed. They had to be in the top 50th percentile or so. In real life we all know that even the most disgustingly unattractive (I mean mentally and physically attractive) people end up having babies.

Quote:
Where are the moderators when things get to this position?

Looks like they're shovelling coal into the furnace this time.

#43 thedevdan   Members   -  Reputation: 210

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 03:27 AM

Timkin, you are the one coming across as insulting, not InnocuousFox.

Now, you agree that with EB, each of the "critters" is obvlivious to what is happening. All they know about is their own simple rules.

Here is Marriam-Webster's definition of coincidence:
Quote:
the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection; also : any of these occurrences


From the standpoint of the critters, it's truly a coincidence how everything is occuring; from the standpoint of the maker of the system, it's not a coincidence, because the behavior of the system is (roughly) intended. However, saying that's intelligent behavior is like saying that water is intelligent; it moves around things perfectly, spreading out and coming together as needed. However, that is only a result of the rules on each individual molecule.

[Edited by - thedevdan on August 21, 2004 12:27:24 PM]

Not giving is not stealing.

#44 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2462

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 04:58 AM

Quote:
Original post by Timkin
Quote:
Original post by InnocuousFox
what is the problem with what I said? It sounds an awful lot like what ol' A.J. said...


No. It doesn't. Indeed, what you said was that

Quote:
"Emergent behavior" is really just a fancy way of saying "a coincidence that really looked cool".

... and that is where you stopped reading. Therein lies the problem.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#45 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2462

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 04:59 AM

Quote:
Original post by thedevdan
Timkin, you are the one coming across as insulting, not InnocuousFox.
He will likely skip this observation and others like it.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#46 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2462

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 05:04 AM

Quote:
Original post by Samith
My triangle armies "thought" and worked together to come to the conclusion that firing everything at a precise angle would be best.
Did they? Or did they come up with their own observations, calculations, etc. and simply receive feedback from a higher level of agregate reporting. There doesn't seem to be any concern for the actions of the other triangles (pro or con) - simply their locations. Therefore they didn't work to come together or cooperate - they simply decided (over time) what was best for themselves. In fact, as far as the agregate reporting - the individual triangle may simply view this as their own personal fitness score... not that of the team as a whole. They can say "I (we) did well or poorly according to this number thingy."
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#47 BenevolentLiao   Members   -  Reputation: 144

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 08:02 AM

Try to describing...

Emergent Behaviour:
--Behaviour that is not obviously code in.
--More complex than sub unit's keeping rule.
--Self-hold.

InnocuousFox lose on the last requirement. It is surely needed some "nonlinear feedback mechanisms", just like Timkin's say.

[Edited by - BenevolentLiao on August 21, 2004 2:02:41 PM]

#48 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

0Likes

Posted 21 August 2004 - 12:28 PM

The choice is yours.

Do you want to do the same old thing? Perhaps that is not your forte. Perhaps you want to be innovative? Do something new? Do something better? While this necessarily isnt an either/or situation, I can garantee you, that if you have the philosophy of a Fox then you are one of the least likely to produce anything innovative in the game industry.

Extending his theory to graphics programming for example, he would be tossing more polygons rather than doing per pixel shading. The game industry uses polygons after all! Screw acedemia! More polygons! Its the way its done!

I've seen this Fox put down some pretty simple yet very efficient AI techniques in favor of scripting, finate state machines, and other mundane stuff. While he is right that such mundane stuff has been used and will continue to be used to produce AI like behavior in many (but NOT ALL!) games, he is doing *everybody* a disservice by constantly smearing more advanced and innovative techniques in favor of "the one" accepted way which he prophets like a religion.

It is my firm belief, and I am not alone in this, that you should use THE BEST TOOL that is WITHIN YOUR REACH for A SPECIFIC JOB. You dont nail in screws any more than you screw in nails, unless all you have is a hammer and a couple screws of course.


#49 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2462

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 01:37 PM

Oh my God... this is the worst misrepresentation I have ever seen. Must be that it is an election year. *rollseyes*

Quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Do you want to do the same old thing? Perhaps that is not your forte. Perhaps you want to be innovative? Do something new? Do something better? While this necessarily isnt an either/or situation, I can garantee you, that if you have the philosophy of a Fox then you are one of the least likely to produce anything innovative in the game industry.

You know nothing of my "philosophy". I don't espouse any "philosophy" here... much less whatever "mine" is. However, one approach that I DO use is to answer people's fucking questions and discuss options without loading them down with a bunch of garbage that they obviously can't use given the level of their skills and the extent of their project. Let's put it this way... there are a lot of "watch-building schematics" tossed around on this board when people are simply asking "what does the big hand mean when it is pointing to 3?" If helping people in a way that they will actually view as helpful is a "philosophy" then I suppose I am guilty of that. *shrug* The rest of your premise regarding my "philosophy" is either based on a false premise or is just simply a non sequitor.

Quote:
I've seen this Fox put down some pretty simple yet very efficient AI techniques in favor of scripting, finate state machines, and other mundane stuff.

First, name one.
Second, if you can find an example, what was the situation and/or knowledge level of the person?

Quote:
While he is right that such mundane stuff has been used and will continue to be used to produce AI like behavior in many (but NOT ALL!) games, he is doing *everybody* a disservice by constantly smearing more advanced and innovative techniques in favor of "the one" accepted way which he prophets like a religion.
Holy crap is this idiotic to say about me! Given the option, I would prefer to use ANNs, GAs and all that fancy stuff (if the situation called for it)... but in most practical game applications - especially of the scope discussed here, it isn't terribly feasible to do a bang up job with those. Does that mean I don't think those techniques have value either now or in the future? No. However, I don't think that every question on this board should be rubber stamped with the answer "ANN" or "GA". In fact, it can be argued that inviting everyone into the inner sanctums of advanced techniques on their first day of AI 101 may very well be doing a disservice as well.

Quote:
It is my firm belief, and I am not alone in this, that you should use THE BEST TOOL that is WITHIN YOUR REACH for A SPECIFIC JOB. You dont nail in screws any more than you screw in nails, unless all you have is a hammer and a couple screws of course.
I have always been in favor of the "best tool for the job" concept. In fact, there are many times when I have told people that they are starting with the wrong approach... picking the tool first (because it sounds cool or something) and trying to make it work for the job rather than analyzing the job and selecting the appropriate tool. Often, this does not happen on here. In fact, many people are encouraged to use tools that are just plain wrong for the job at hand. To continue your metaphor... you don't run out and buy a big ol' power tool when all you NEED is a freakin' hammer.

The claim that I don't know anything about Timkin et al, what they do or what they stand for may be valid... that being said, the claims you have made above about what I "stand for" is just as misguided and ill-supported. To sum up, you don't know shit about what I "stand for". Talk to Steve Woodcock, Bob Scott, (and unfortunately the late Eric Dybsand) and others about what I discuss, what I know, what I want to know, what I want to try, what I want to explore, etc. They MAY have an idea... but largely YOU do not.

Given that, what you have said is not only incorrect but also entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand regarding the industry-colloquial definition of emergent behavior.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#50 thedevdan   Members   -  Reputation: 210

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 01:50 PM

I just have to come to InnocuousFox's defense here. He's just being practical; I also cringe when I see simple questions answered with complex answers.

If you're going to smear him and say that he is anti-innovation, here is a quote from his website (the one linked in his signature):
Quote:
Intrinsic Algorithm's focus is on "Real-time Strategy" (RTS) games and "God Games" that are balanced and lush in their detailed modeling of the worlds they are meant to represent. Their belief is that the focus of computer gaming, in the industry's attempt to promote visual and aural believability, has shifted away from intellectual believability. While the technology available to the developer and the player alike has increased at an exponential rate, it has been noticed - and lamented - that the AI and mathematical representations of the world have not improved at a similar rate. It is this void in gaming that IA seeks to fill. After all, what is the point of the on-screen behemoth that LOOKS like a diabolical monster, yet acts like a mechanical wind-up toy?


Anti-innovation?

Not giving is not stealing.

#51 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2462

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 04:26 PM

His post is the one right above the one where I quoted it.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#52 Jojo_the_fluffy_bear   Members   -  Reputation: 319

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 05:20 PM

Wow. About 1/2 of the replies have been about two people bickering back and forth at each other. While you certainly should defend yourself when someone attacks you, should it really come down to pouring over the minutia of each others posts so you can pick them apart?

Please, take it up in private because it's not doing a damn bit of good for the original poster and it's certainly not adding anything to the discussion.

Can't we all just get along? :)


-Jojo




#53 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2462

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2004 - 05:43 PM

Quote:
Original post by Jojo_the_fluffy_bear
Can't we all just get along? :)
Would that it were that simple. I was just trying to help the OP by adding my bit. Aparently I am not licensed for such endeavours. *sigh*
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#54 Timkin   Members   -  Reputation: 864

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 August 2004 - 01:16 PM

Quote:
Original post by thedevdan
Timkin, you are the one coming across as insulting, not InnocuousFox.


That's not my intention. If my posts have offended you, then you have my apologies.

Quote:
Original post by thedevdan
Now, you agree that with EB, each of the "critters" is obvlivious to what is happening. All they know about is their own simple rules.

No, I don't agree with this. Please don't stipulate that I do. In the hive discussions we've been having, each of the creatures is an agent; they act based on their drives, beliefs (be they hard-wired or learned) and their observations of the environment. The *know* about the states of other agents around them. They *know* about the state of their environment. They choose actions based on their beliefs and observations to satiate their drives. There is nothing accidental about this. The results of such individual behaviours and the explicit interactions of agents within the system are NOT coincidental.

Quote:
Original post by thedevdan
Here is Marriam-Webster's definition of coincidence:
Quote:
the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection; also : any of these occurrences



Your mistake here is to continue to insist that such events occur by accident. There is no accident here. There is only sub-unit level properties interacting via that laws of the universe. One does NOT need to rely on stochastics to postulate EB. There are many deterministic systems that display EB. There is nothing accidental about a deterministic system.

Let's move away from agents for a moment and consider something else. How about a mass suspended on a spring that is perturbed from equilibrium. The mass oscillates in space. An emergent behaviour of this system is the space-time curve produced by the mass; it's a sinusoid. This curve is not explicitly coded into the system. It arises because of the properties of springs. It would not arise by accident in any way. It arises *exactly* because of the properties of the sping and the perturbation. The only way to produce it is to perturb the system from equilibrium.


[quote]Original post by thedevdan
From the standpoint of the critters, it's truly a coincidence how everything is occuring.
[quote]
Again, this is wrong. Each critter plays its own part in the EB, even though it doesn't *know* it is. It certainly *knows* about its own state, observations and actions. So, it my be okay to say that from the standpoint of an individual agent the specific EB is a coincidence, because that agent didn't plan on it, but it is certainly NOT okay to say so from the system perspective or the observers perspective. Just because the agent doesn't understand how the EB occured, doesn't mean that the EB was a coincidence.

Every time the word coincidence has been used in this thread by my opponents it has been in terms of the system analysis or the observers analysis of the system. We're talking about system level analysis here. Please don't confuse the issue any more.

Quote:
Original post by thedevdan
from the standpoint of the maker of the system, it's not a coincidence, because the behavior of the system is (roughly) intended.


We don't need to postulate a God (of any kind) to discuss EB or determine how it arises. There is certainly no intention in the spring to produce the sinusoid, any more than there is intention in the two points in a plane producing a Euclidean distance between them. As to intention in hives, that's a debate for another day.

Quote:
Original post by thedevdan
However, saying that's intelligent behavior is like saying that water is intelligent


Okay, WHO was saying that EB was intelligent. Certainly not I! Intelligence itself might certainly be an EB, but I'm not suggesting for a moment that intelligence is necessary for EB. Don't put words in my mouth (again).

I find it VERY interesting (and amusing) that those who stand against me in this thread have continually failed to justify their argument of coincidence with clear examples. It appears that faith is the order of the day here for many. I also notice that those most vocal in attacking me have remained silent to my examples against their argument.

Timkin

#55 Timkin   Members   -  Reputation: 864

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 August 2004 - 01:27 PM

Quote:
Original post by InnocuousFox
... and that is where you stopped reading. Therein lies the problem.


Dave, provide a valid argument to back up your conjecture or just simply apologise for your mistake.

Further to this, stop trolling please. Your comments are obviously intended as flame bait because you are pissed off... for example:

Quote:
Original post by InnocuousFox
He will likely skip this observation and others like it.


Comments like this simply detract from the thread further.

To everyone else that feels the need to continually attack anyone else... stop it please. If anyone here thinks that I have been attacking Dave, then you have my apologies. It has not been my intent to do that. I believe I have been defending myself against another instance of criticism that I come from an academic background and that this is useless here. This is not the first time that I have been accused by Dave of detracting from a thread because I post a definition in it, or a technical response and I am sick and tired of the direct implication that I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not paid by a game studio.

Well, you know what, maybe I just wont bother any more. I AM sick and tired of this crap and in-fighting. Sorry Will, but it appears I was wrong in my last message. I'll continue to help mod in this thread, but I'm not going to bother offering solutions any more. It's obvious they're not appreciated.

I hope you're happy Dave. You've got what you've been fighting for for the past 3 years.

Signing off,

Timkin.

#56 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2462

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 August 2004 - 05:13 PM

Quote:
Original post by Timkin
Quote:
Original post by InnocuousFox
... and that is where you stopped reading. Therein lies the problem.


Dave, provide a valid argument to back up your conjecture or just simply apologise for your mistake.
To what mistake are you refering? The rest of the original post of mine gave similar examples of flocking behaviors, etc. and gave specific reasons for those types of behaviors that have since been supported in this thread as belonging to the colloquial definition of EB. However, you seem to be seriously stuck (fixated?) on the initial sentance in the post (re: coincidence) - the sentance/term that I have later retracted. The rest of my initial post holds up under the judgement of this thread, however. A little hyperfocused on that one comment of mine, are we?

Quote:
Further to this, stop trolling please. Your comments are obviously intended as flame bait because you are pissed off...
Oh, this IS rich, isn't it? Odd that people are pointing at YOU for being an ass and yet it seems to be ME that is trolling? How curious.

Quote:
To everyone else that feels the need to continually attack anyone else... stop it please.
Simply pick apart everything they say and justify it by telling them that YOU are the only possible right one in the room. That much is OK to do.
Quote:
If anyone here thinks that I have been attacking Dave, then you have my apologies. It has not been my intent to do that.
You have simply picked apart everything I have said (and others) and justifying it by telling us that YOU are the only possible right one in the room. That much is OK to do... no apology necessary, I'm sure.

Quote:
I believe I have been defending myself against another instance of criticism that I come from an academic background and that this is useless here.
I believe that I have been defending myself against your insinuation that I don't know what I'm talking about... and primarly defending the notion that you apparently don't speak for a large body of the Game AI community when it comes to the definition of "emergent behavior".

Quote:
This is not the first time that I have been accused by Dave of detracting from a thread because I post a definition in it, or a technical response...
... And this is not the first time you have come across like a pompous ass that is completely unaware of the context of a discussion. Trust me, I'm not alone in this observation.

Quote:
...and I am sick and tired of the direct implication that I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not paid by a game studio.
All such "implications" seem to be merely inferences on your part. However, you would be wise to remember that your peers in this little coffee nook of the information highway do not have Masters level course work under their belt. They are often not only not paid by a game studio, but not paid by anyone... in fact, many people who wander in to ask these questions are, for example, graphics designers working on a project of their own to just "putz with". It doesn't matter how "cutting edge" your solutions are when someone doesn't understand how to change between two states in a FSM. It doesn't matter how "right" you are when someone doesn't "get" 80% of what you are telling them.

I am all for high-level, advanced conversation and discussion. (Odd that you have insinuated the reverse.) However, that doesn't mean that you need to come in here and spew all over everything. Pull your head out of the books for a bit and make an effort to be some form of "people person." Find out what they are REALLY asking and REALLY needing. I know you recall vividly my somewhat crude reference a few months ago... but you really do sound like the politicians during the election year where every line of question can be easily steered to their pre-programmed talking points. Read the post, ask some qualifiers and then answer the bloody question... without blowing people away with the hard core crap. As I mentioned a few posts back... "there are a lot of "watch-building schematics" tossed around on this board when people are simply asking "what does the big hand mean when it is pointing to 3?"

Quote:
Well, you know what, maybe I just wont bother any more. I AM sick and tired of this crap and in-fighting. Sorry Will, but it appears I was wrong in my last message. I'll continue to help mod in this thread, but I'm not going to bother offering solutions any more. It's obvious they're not appreciated.
Oh, great. Now you are just pouting. That's right up there with "I'm going to take my toys and go home." Much of your input IS apprecitated... not only by others, but by me. (You see? My legs DON'T roll back up under the house when the Ruby Slippers come off!) What is likely NOT appreciated is the way YOU started this entire snowball of crap when you told me, to paraphrase: "You are wrong. You don't know what you are talking about." There have been more than enough respected people dropping into this thread to support the claim that I made. You just didn't quit, did you? All this time, you have been going off the freakin' deep end... and now YOU feel attacked enough to go home? Get over yourself, Tim.

You ARE a smart son of a bitch and you are well respected. I don't care who the hell is paying you to do it or what you have done in the past... the fact still holds that you can bring it when you need to. Just don't always be "bringing it".

Quote:
I hope you're happy Dave. You've got what you've been fighting for for the past 3 years.
Fantastic final tactic of yours... unless people are curious enough to look up the last 3 years of my posts, you leave them with an unchallenged claim that I have been stalking you for 3 years. You either know that is wrong, a misrepresentation and/or a gross exageration... or you have some serious mental health problems surrounding persecution. I really wish you wouldn't do shit like that... Christ... talk about trolling. *rollseyes*

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#57 Timkin   Members   -  Reputation: 864

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 August 2004 - 06:28 PM

You just don't get it do you Dave. I'm sick and tired of your shit, your insinuations, your gross over-simplifications and your abusive posts. Because I have stated that I don't wish to partake of this crap any more, you accuse me of being immature, pouting and 'taking my toys and going home'. You never cease do you and you're not going to stop this crap, are you.

No Dave, I'm not pouting. I'm simply removing myself from the situation once and for all. For my own sanity and that of the others who are subjected to this crap. I see no benefit from giving up what little free time I have to offer information in this thread just so I can have people like you go to town on me because I'm 'too technical' and 'I dont answer the question asked at an appropriate level'. Fine. You're right, of course. If you want to label me as immature because I won't fight with you, even though you continue to bait me, then so be it. I don't give a shit about what you think of me anyway.

You can go ahead and say what you want now. I'm not going to defend myself any more. I just hope that for the sake of this forum you ease up and stop attacking people.

To everyone else that thinks that I have been attacking Dave or others in this thread, my apologies. However, I urge you to go back and read this thread again and fairly evaluate the tone of comments and the use of certain language by each participant before deciding who has been attacking whom. If you still believe it's my fault, I'm very sorry if I've detracted from your experience here at GD.net as a result.

Cheers,

Timkin

[Edited by - Timkin on August 23, 2004 3:28:23 AM]

#58 eeaiguy   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 August 2004 - 03:24 AM

Quote:
Original post by Timkin
Quote:
Original post by InnocuousFox
*shrug*

Well, I'm just repeating what game AI designers, programmers and litterature consider "emergent behavior" to be.


Could you provide some references Dave or perhaps identify these people? Either these people are wrong and are propogating erroneous information (in which case they should be correced before they set the industry back another 5 years) or you have misunderstood what they were saying/writing. All I can say is that I've never heard a game designer or programmer talk about emergent behaviour in the way you have, nor have I seen Game AI literature that refers to it as coincidence and involving no contextual awareness.

Cheers,

Timkin


See my articles in AI Game Programming Wisdom...

Bob ScottAI Designer/ProgrammerStainless Steel Studios

#59 eeaiguy   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 August 2004 - 03:24 AM

Sorry I've come in kinda late on this one, but just wanted to come to Dave's defense a bit - we've actually talked quite a bit about EB *as it pertains to games*. And he's right about it in that context.

I have no doubt that Timkin is right about it in the grander scheme of AI, but that doesn't normally apply to those of us writing AI for games. Not that some of the tools of academia aren't used by us or that we don't appreciate the work being done by them...

While I appreciate Timkin's crusade to further the industry by making sure that definitions are clear, this constant bickering is what has kept me from posting more here.

And now (after posting this of course), I finish reading the whole thread and find out that Timkin likely won't even read this...

So, never mind.

[Edited by - eeaiguy on August 23, 2004 9:24:02 AM]
Bob ScottAI Designer/ProgrammerStainless Steel Studios

#60 RPGeezus   Members   -  Reputation: 216

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 August 2004 - 04:27 AM

Please delete this thread-- it is a stain on the forum.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS