15 ms·

I have a problem with procedural games in that whenever I face something new, I know it is not the process of a human creative mind. There wasn’t any intention

by soneca 6y ago

I have a problem with procedural games in that whenever I face something new, I know it is not the process of a human creative mind. There wasn’t any intention behind that creation, there were no conscious or subconscious decisions about what that was supposed to mean, there was no human bias, no human tropes. Essentially, for me, there was no story. I lack any more understanding of the world, the humans, or the society for encountering that piece of creation. It is empty for me. Meaningless. A parade of random dice rolls thrown by a machine carefully designed to be misinterpreted as a story. I feel the same about a story written by GPT-3. Or AI music creation. To make myself clear, I think there is more depth in any superficial pop song composed by humans with the only purpose of earning money based in tried and tired formulas than it is ever possible to achieve in any music ever created by an AI.

colordrops 6y ago
For now.
lordnacho 6y ago
So, suppose it were possible to simulate a brain. Say someone in the future figures out how brains work, and boils it down to some physical processes to do with neurons and synapses. Ed Sheeran is then scanned, and a battery of machines produces new music from the patterns in his brain. What do you think of that? For me, it seems the creative process must be informational. It's something to do with mixing up experienced life, ideas, cultural tropes, etc. But in being informational, it's also not specific to the first substrate that generated it. In fact you have the luxury of being able to "run the code" on new substrates, and that creates a new economics of what is considered good.
ipnon 6y ago
I'm also fascinated by the application of AI like GPT-3 to generating video game content. The best content will come from game developers working with GPT-3, where GPT-3 comes up with characters and subplots without exhaustion, and the game developer filters the generated leads for ideas that stand on their own and ideas that invite more exploration. It seems reasonable for game developers to be able to generate an order of magnitude more NPCs using this method. The game director can pour their heart and soul into the main storyline, and the assistants can create hundreds of hours of less original but still sufficient content. I imagine being able to create DLC after the initial release at a rate that exceeds any players ability to finish the latest release before the next comes out.
zdkl 6y ago
I'd argue there is also depth within the "random dice rolls thrown by a [carefully designed] machine", specifically in the design and choices that went into said machine's implementation. It's certainly a bit meta, but I enjoy this more than human created superficial pop songs.
dx87 6y ago
Would it make a difference if you didn't know it was procedural? Games like Dark Souls have a story, but the majority of it isn't spelled out, it's up to you to fill in the gaps based on the environment and tidbits from characters you meet.
ImprobableTruth 6y ago
I used to agree with this (and I still hate 'procedural content' because of how absolutely soulless it is), but GPT-3 gets close enough for me (though it requires cherry picking). It's at least miles above 'procedural content'. Like, read this story for example: https://read-the-samples.netlify.app/sample_99 https://read-the-samples.netlify.app/sample_99 It still has issues, but at its core, it has a lot of character and is quite funny to me. I'm not sure if GPT-3 truly has an understanding of its 'meaning', but it definitely can at least somewhat emulate such an understanding it.
lukas099 6y ago
It can be really cool when humans and programs collaborate on creative ventures. For example, the youtuber Kruggsmash [1] plays Dwarf Fortress and illustrates parts of the story as he goes along. [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaifrB5IrvGNPJmPeVOcqBA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaifrB5IrvGNPJmPeVOcqBA
nathanlied 6y ago
I know how superficially contradictory this may seem, but I disagree at an emotional level, however, I rationally see where you're coming from, and perhaps even agree to an extent. For me, the 'process' of creation of a game, or piece of art, is interesting in and of itself. Whether a song was created for profit only, or inspired by the loss of someone close, is interesting on its own but it does not enrich the work, if that makes sense. The work in itself produces feelings, and those feelings would be there regardless of origin. In fact, I've found myself deeply moved by music, ascribing to it meaning and intent, that turns out is completely different from that intended by the author. That is what I mean when I say I emotionally disagree with you. If a work of art can produce feelings in us that the author never felt nor intended, can we say that the author matters in any special way? After all, we're post-Death of the Author. However, for the rational part of me, the source matters. If for no other reason than philosophically: Why does art inspire feelings in us, even those unintended by the artist? Is it empathy? Even if misguided? If so, we could say art is devalued by a non-feeling creator: after all, what's there to empathise with? Or is it the recognition of something within ourselves? A (guided) self-introspection, if you will? Then the source doesn't inherently devalue the product; unless you're somehow opposed to introspecting based on the output of a machine. I feel as if some of us have been so worried about sentient/super-intelligent AI outperforming us creatively, we haven't worried enough about what it would mean if non-sentient/'intelligent' AI outperformed us at our own creative process. Or even reached parity - that on its own would be monumental.
jjeaff 6y ago
At first glance, I agree with you, but upon further thought, I remember a literature class we had in college and we were reading something and had dissected it to bits. We had extracted and applied so much meaning to a few passages and a few of us pointed out that all this nuance was almost certainly unintentional and that we were reading far too deeply into it. But the professor's question was "does it really matter that this wasn't the intent?" And that sort of changed the way I approached the literature. When you are reading, are you reading and studying it to merely learn about what the author thought and experienced and intended? Or are you reading to better explore your own thoughts, perceptions, and interpretations? I would say, porque no los dos?
- mercer 6y ago
  See, for me that supports OP's point. The reason I developed a distaste for this kind of analysis is precisely because it became clear to me that the connection with the author was tenuous. I don't feel this kind of stuff is useless, it's just that I don't find 'death of the author' stuff remotely as interesting as actually figuring out /why/ the author wrote what they did, and /what/ they intended to convey, and /how/ they decided to do it the way they did. I suspect GPT-3 type stuff will never be able to convincingly replace an 'author'. Games might show up that finally have interesting, generated side-missions, but people like myself will likely still prefer human-created versions of them. Not because the generated versions are in themselves inferior, but because the ones that involve a human will necessarily involve said human's choices on a level above the missions themselves. (Of course, in reality things are much less black and white. In more than one game I've felt like the designer(s) used tools to generate stuff and then curated the results.)
jointpdf 6y ago
How would you interpret the work of Brian Eno, or other algorithmic/generative artists? Steve Reich’s compositions are algorithmic (but not stochastic), and are widely considered to be masterpieces. Another example: Eno’s Reflection, which exists as both a 54 minute version and an endless generative ambient composition. > The creation of a piece of music like this falls into three stages: the first is the selection of sonic materials and a musical mode – a constellation of musical relationships. These are then patterned and explored by a system of algorithms which vary and permutate the initial elements I feed into them, resulting in a constantly morphing stream (or river) of music. The third stage is listening. Once I have the system up and running I spend a long time – many days and weeks in fact – seeing what it does and fine-tuning the materials and sets of rules that run the algorithms. It’s a lot like gardening: you plant the seeds and then you keep tending to them until you get a garden you like. > Moving the composition into software allowed an extra opportunity; the rules themselves could change with the time of day. The harmony is brighter in the morning, transitioning gradually over the afternoon to reach the original key by evening. As the early hours draw in, newly introduced conditions thin the notes out and slow everything down. [https://pitchfork.com/news/70448-brian-eno-details-generative-editions-of-new-album-reflection/ https://pitchfork.com/news/70448-brian-eno-details-generativ...] To me, crafting a system that itself crafts endlessly novel music or art requires significant level of intention, understanding, and meaning.
- yuvalr1 6y ago
  > To me, crafting a system that itself crafts endlessly novel music or art requires significant level of intention, understanding, and meaning Then the system is the art, not its output

by soneca 6y ago

colordrops 6y ago

For now.

lordnacho 6y ago

So, suppose it were possible to simulate a brain. Say someone in the future figures out how brains work, and boils it down to some physical processes to do with neurons and synapses. Ed Sheeran is then scanned, and a battery of machines produces new music from the patterns in his brain. What do you think of that? For me, it seems the creative process must be informational. It's something to do with mixing up experienced life, ideas, cultural tropes, etc. But in being informational, it's also not specific to the first substrate that generated it. In fact you have the luxury of being able to "run the code" on new substrates, and that creates a new economics of what is considered good.

ipnon 6y ago

I'm also fascinated by the application of AI like GPT-3 to generating video game content. The best content will come from game developers working with GPT-3, where GPT-3 comes up with characters and subplots without exhaustion, and the game developer filters the generated leads for ideas that stand on their own and ideas that invite more exploration. It seems reasonable for game developers to be able to generate an order of magnitude more NPCs using this method. The game director can pour their heart and soul into the main storyline, and the assistants can create hundreds of hours of less original but still sufficient content. I imagine being able to create DLC after the initial release at a rate that exceeds any players ability to finish the latest release before the next comes out.

zdkl 6y ago

I'd argue there is also depth within the "random dice rolls thrown by a [carefully designed] machine", specifically in the design and choices that went into said machine's implementation. It's certainly a bit meta, but I enjoy this more than human created superficial pop songs.

dx87 6y ago

Would it make a difference if you didn't know it was procedural? Games like Dark Souls have a story, but the majority of it isn't spelled out, it's up to you to fill in the gaps based on the environment and tidbits from characters you meet.

ImprobableTruth 6y ago

I used to agree with this (and I still hate 'procedural content' because of how absolutely soulless it is), but GPT-3 gets close enough for me (though it requires cherry picking). It's at least miles above 'procedural content'. Like, read this story for example: https://read-the-samples.netlify.app/sample_99 https://read-the-samples.netlify.app/sample_99 It still has issues, but at its core, it has a lot of character and is quite funny to me. I'm not sure if GPT-3 truly has an understanding of its 'meaning', but it definitely can at least somewhat emulate such an understanding it.

lukas099 6y ago

It can be really cool when humans and programs collaborate on creative ventures. For example, the youtuber Kruggsmash [1] plays Dwarf Fortress and illustrates parts of the story as he goes along. [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaifrB5IrvGNPJmPeVOcqBA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaifrB5IrvGNPJmPeVOcqBA

nathanlied 6y ago

I know how superficially contradictory this may seem, but I disagree at an emotional level, however, I rationally see where you're coming from, and perhaps even agree to an extent. For me, the 'process' of creation of a game, or piece of art, is interesting in and of itself. Whether a song was created for profit only, or inspired by the loss of someone close, is interesting on its own but it does not enrich the work, if that makes sense. The work in itself produces feelings, and those feelings would be there regardless of origin. In fact, I've found myself deeply moved by music, ascribing to it meaning and intent, that turns out is completely different from that intended by the author. That is what I mean when I say I emotionally disagree with you. If a work of art can produce feelings in us that the author never felt nor intended, can we say that the author matters in any special way? After all, we're post-Death of the Author. However, for the rational part of me, the source matters. If for no other reason than philosophically: Why does art inspire feelings in us, even those unintended by the artist? Is it empathy? Even if misguided? If so, we could say art is devalued by a non-feeling creator: after all, what's there to empathise with? Or is it the recognition of something within ourselves? A (guided) self-introspection, if you will? Then the source doesn't inherently devalue the product; unless you're somehow opposed to introspecting based on the output of a machine. I feel as if some of us have been so worried about sentient/super-intelligent AI outperforming us creatively, we haven't worried enough about what it would mean if non-sentient/'intelligent' AI outperformed us at our own creative process. Or even reached parity - that on its own would be monumental.

jjeaff 6y ago

At first glance, I agree with you, but upon further thought, I remember a literature class we had in college and we were reading something and had dissected it to bits. We had extracted and applied so much meaning to a few passages and a few of us pointed out that all this nuance was almost certainly unintentional and that we were reading far too deeply into it. But the professor's question was "does it really matter that this wasn't the intent?" And that sort of changed the way I approached the literature. When you are reading, are you reading and studying it to merely learn about what the author thought and experienced and intended? Or are you reading to better explore your own thoughts, perceptions, and interpretations? I would say, porque no los dos?

mercer 6y ago
See, for me that supports OP's point. The reason I developed a distaste for this kind of analysis is precisely because it became clear to me that the connection with the author was tenuous. I don't feel this kind of stuff is useless, it's just that I don't find 'death of the author' stuff remotely as interesting as actually figuring out /why/ the author wrote what they did, and /what/ they intended to convey, and /how/ they decided to do it the way they did. I suspect GPT-3 type stuff will never be able to convincingly replace an 'author'. Games might show up that finally have interesting, generated side-missions, but people like myself will likely still prefer human-created versions of them. Not because the generated versions are in themselves inferior, but because the ones that involve a human will necessarily involve said human's choices on a level above the missions themselves. (Of course, in reality things are much less black and white. In more than one game I've felt like the designer(s) used tools to generate stuff and then curated the results.)

jointpdf 6y ago

How would you interpret the work of Brian Eno, or other algorithmic/generative artists? Steve Reich’s compositions are algorithmic (but not stochastic), and are widely considered to be masterpieces. Another example: Eno’s Reflection, which exists as both a 54 minute version and an endless generative ambient composition. > The creation of a piece of music like this falls into three stages: the first is the selection of sonic materials and a musical mode – a constellation of musical relationships. These are then patterned and explored by a system of algorithms which vary and permutate the initial elements I feed into them, resulting in a constantly morphing stream (or river) of music. The third stage is listening. Once I have the system up and running I spend a long time – many days and weeks in fact – seeing what it does and fine-tuning the materials and sets of rules that run the algorithms. It’s a lot like gardening: you plant the seeds and then you keep tending to them until you get a garden you like. > Moving the composition into software allowed an extra opportunity; the rules themselves could change with the time of day. The harmony is brighter in the morning, transitioning gradually over the afternoon to reach the original key by evening. As the early hours draw in, newly introduced conditions thin the notes out and slow everything down. [https://pitchfork.com/news/70448-brian-eno-details-generative-editions-of-new-album-reflection/ https://pitchfork.com/news/70448-brian-eno-details-generativ...] To me, crafting a system that itself crafts endlessly novel music or art requires significant level of intention, understanding, and meaning.

yuvalr1 6y ago
> To me, crafting a system that itself crafts endlessly novel music or art requires significant level of intention, understanding, and meaning Then the system is the art, not its output