1 / 37

Is it Possible to Build Dramatically Compelling Interactive Digital Entertainment? v2

Is it Possible to Build Dramatically Compelling Interactive Digital Entertainment? v2. Games?. Selmer Bringsjord Director, Minds & Machines Laboratory Prof of Logic and Cognitive Science Dept. of Philosophy, Psychology & Cognitive Science Department of Computer Science

perrin
Download Presentation

Is it Possible to Build Dramatically Compelling Interactive Digital Entertainment? v2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Is it Possible to BuildDramatically Compelling Interactive Digital Entertainment? v2 Games? Selmer Bringsjord Director, Minds & Machines Laboratory Prof of Logic and Cognitive Science Dept. of Philosophy, Psychology & Cognitive Science Department of Computer Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy NY 12180 USA Chief Scientist, Document Development Corporation 1223 Peoples Ave. Troy NY 12180 USA selmer@rpi.edu http://www.rpi.edu/~brings

  2. Is it Possible to BuildDramatically Compelling Interactive Digital Entertainment? Selmer Bringsjord Director, Minds & Machines Laboratory Prof of Logic, Cognitive Science, & Computer Science Dept. of Philosophy, Psychology & Cognitive Science Department of Computer Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy NY 12180 USA Chief Scientist, Document Development Corporation 1223 Peoples Ave. Troy NY 12180 USA selmer@rpi.edu http://www.rpi.edu/~brings

  3. Is it Possible to BuildDramatically Compelling Interactive Digital Entertainment? Selmer Bringsjord Director, Minds & Machines Laboratory Prof of Logic, Cognitive Science, & Computer Science Dept. of Philosophy, Psychology & Cognitive Science Department of Computer Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy NY 12180 USA Chief Scientist, Document Development Corporation 1223 Peoples Ave. Troy NY 12180 USA selmer@rpi.edu http://www.rpi.edu/~brings

  4. We Have Dramatically Compelling Digital Entertainment

  5. Two Preliminary Points • Mathematically-based realism about AI (and, in this case, narrative) • Solvable vs Unsolvable Problems • Computers aren’t finite diagrams or finite state automata, but rather LBAs or Turing machines, and as such are impotent in the face of an infinite number of problems • There’s no free lunch • Automated learning isn’t going to give us great NPC’s • Laird • Ergo, Logic!

  6. Logical Systems: Which for DCIDE?

  7. Unfortunately…

  8. Some Key Challenges • Formalizing Literary Themes • For me it’s been betrayal • Coming: mendacity • “Selmer, we want X in our game.” • Well, I need some serious money for that. • Story Mastery • Without it, hack-and-slash, at best • The Bates experiment • Fortunes to be made here • Building Robust Autonomous Characters • Personalization Mendacity

  9. Autonomous AI in The Matrix

  10. Characters Must Be Intelligent Agents

  11. Generic Knowledge-Based Agent(smarter than what appear in nearly all games, including, e.g., Hitman) function KB-Agent(percept) returns an action inputs: p, a percept static: KB, a knowledge base t, a counter, initially 0 Tell(KB, Make-Percept-Sentence(percept, t)) action Ask(KB, Make-Action-Query(t)) Tell(KB, Make-Action-Sentence(action, t)) t t + 1 returnaction

  12. The Wumpus World

  13. We Build Agents Like This in the Minds & Machines Laboratory

  14. But Personhood Involves… • Ability to communicate in a language • Autonomy (“free will”) • Creativity • Phenomenal consciousness (= subjective awareness, qualia, what-it’s-like-to-be-you consciousness, P-consciousness) • Robust abstract reasoning today

  15. Turing Test What color and in what style is your hair? Judge

  16. In the TT, it’s Really Judge vs. Designer I can handle tha- uh, it can handle that one. Judge What color and in what style is your hair? Designer

  17. The Lovelace Test How did it do that? S o Designer (= Judge) Judge (= Designer)

  18. Definition of Lovelace Test • Artificial agent A, designed by H, passes LT if and only if • A outputs o; • A’s outputting o is not the result of a fluke hardware error, but rather the result of processes A can repeat; • H (or someone who knows what H knows, and has H’s resources) cannot explain how A produced o by appeal to A’s architecture, knowledge-base, and core functions.

  19. What Systems Fail LT? • Brutus (see final chapter) • Copycat (see book as well) • Letter Spirit . . .

  20. Is the Set of All “A”s Countable?

  21. The Original Dream A B C D E F … Z Percepts: ? Actions: Design remaining letters

  22. Letter Spirit System as anIntelligent Agent Letter Spirit A B C D E F … Z Percepts: seed letters Actions: Design remaining letters

  23. Step #1 • Digitize! • Figure X-5 • Ten human-designed gridfonts (Fig X-6) • 1500 A’s (Fig X-7) • Okay, now how does this work?…

  24. The Retreat to Grids

  25. Ten Human-Designed Gridfonts

  26. 1500 “A”s are Possible

  27. The Argument That Worries Me 1 Dramatically compelling interactive digital entertainment requires the presence in such entertainment of virtual persons, and therefore requires the presence of autonomous virtual characters. 2 Autonomous virtual characters would pass the Lovelace Test. 3 Autonomous virtual characters would be intelligent agents, in the technical sense of “intelligent agents” in use in AI (specifically in AIMA). 4 Intelligent agents fail the Lovelace Test. Therefore: 5 Dramatically compelling interactive digital entertainment isn't possible.

  28. Again: I Want to Administer the Turing Test in a Digital World…

  29. But my argument indicatesthat for this dream to becomereality will require somepreternaturally clever engineering.

  30. Toward Mendacity • x tells lie p to y iff • p is false; • x knows that p is false;

  31. Toward Mendacity • x tells lie p to y iff • p is false; • x knows that p is false; • But where’s the communication?

  32. Toward Mendacity • x tells lie p to y iff • x (in some technical communicative sense) tells yp; • (Using AIMA, we could invoke TELLing to another’s KB) • p is false; • x knows that p is false;

  33. Toward Mendacity • x tells lie p to y iff • x (in some technical communicative sense) tells yp; • (Using AIMA, we could invoke TELLing to another’s KB) • p is false; • x knows that p is false; • But perhaps x is being sarcastic!

  34. Toward Mendacity • x tells lie p to y iff • x (in some technical communicative sense) tells yp; • (Using AIMA, we could invoke TELLing to another’s KB) • p is false; • x knows that p is false; • x wants y to believe p.

  35. Toward Mendacity • x tells lie p to y iff • x (in some technical communicative sense) tells yp; • (Using AIMA, we could invoke TELLing to another’s KB) • p is false; • x knows that p is false; • x wants y to believe p. • Does this do it? Back: Some Key Challenges

More Related