3 ms·
> It would be very easy to invent games that were so complicated that only computers could play them; computers could even invent such games automatically. Of
by jcoffland 11y ago
> It would be very easy to invent games that were so complicated that only computers could play them; computers could even invent such games automatically.
Of the many errors in this article this is one of the most flagrant. Computers have yet to invent any novel and challenging games. That would take ingenuity, something computers have failed to demonstrate. However, I suspect the author is trolling a bit.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoEvery time you play a video game that uses generated levels, you are playing a game "invented" by a computer.
- SixSigma 11y agoIndeed. I would also posit that novel and challenging are relatively easy. Games are not just a set of rules but also rewarding to the players. Games exist that are variants of "click the arrow on the coloured pixel 100 times". And people pay to play them. Good luck finding one with a Deep Conv.
- pasquinelli 11y agoi believe i've read about automatically --(i believe automatically, and it's a crucial distinction, but i'm not looking it up right now, so take it with a grain of salt)-- generated proofs so long they can't be reasonably understood by a human, but it "convinces" a computer. such a proof isn't a proof in the sense that it doesn't convince a human being, which is the point of the proof. but, since it checks out, maybe a better way to think of it is it's a mathematical proof but for an audience other than human beings. i wonder if a game is much different from a proof. i mean, we can implement games as programs, so there is a connection at that level.
- jcoffland 11y agoThis sounds more like a computer playing a proof game rather than a computer inventing a proof game.