7 ms·
I can't tell if you're trolling or are just not up to date on game AI, so assuming the latter: you have to think beyond chess. There's much more info on interac
by 60654 9y ago
I can't tell if you're trolling or are just not up to date on game AI, so assuming the latter: you have to think beyond chess. There's much more info on interactive storytelling in the AIIDE proceedings I linked to, it's a very active area of research. Academically it goes back at least to the mid 90s, Oz project at CMU for example, or MIT Media Lab projects. And in commercial production, interactive stories are as old as the industry, probably the best early example is Infocom but back then there wasn't much AI driving it; it's not until the 2000s that people started actually building "drama managers" for shipping games to introduce dramatic conflict dynamically.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ggggtez 9y agoYou can measure research on lots of directions. The purpose of AlphaGo was to win the game, so discussion about AI which are not built to win is largely irrelevant. The difficulty of Go had nothing to do with creating tension (where in many games humans play, AI players can trivially win if the designers wanted them to). In Go this was not the case, as AI lagged behind grandmaster play significantly. Thus, the discussion of research that interests you that has nothing to do with the goals of Go AI, is tangential at best. It's not fair to say the article is faulty just because you wanted them to discuss your favorite research conference.