When do you predict will videogame AI will have enough complex

>>382482168
Nah, human intelligence relies on analog parallel processing far beyond anything we can currently do.

>>382482168
I bet you got rekt afterwards.

>>382482168
Never. Players don't actually want smart AI

>>382482336
This. PCs will never have enough processing power to handle genuinely intelligent AI, and most of the PC budget will go towards a billion other things the game needs to process anyway.

>>382484041
>Players don't actually want smart AI

What in the god damn hell do you mean by this?

>>382486324
smart ai will only choose to lose to humans, which isnt a "fun" way to play a game

humans are way, way, worse than an ai at anything a video game would test

>>382486324
he means that people want skinner boxes that abuse the reward system to make the player feel powerful, rather than presenting an actual challenge to overcome. making a competent ai would win every time against humans.

>>382486324
People don't respond well to being beaten by a program. Whenever this happens, people accuse the computer of cheating, being cheap, or they find a way to exploit the AI to win easily because they can't be bothered to fight it legit.

>>382486897
completely misses the point.

humans are designed to win at video games because we know the limitations of the opponents we fight.

when the opponent has no limits, ie tons more resources or is vastly smarter, its basically impossible to allow the human to win.

one side will always cheat, thats what games are. having a competent opponent will mean that humans will always be the ones losing, though.

>>382486491

An AI wouldnt be smart if it lost. This post doesnt make sense.

>>382486897

Nobody would call a computer "cheater" long as the hitboxes were fair.

File: Mirror.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>382482168
>In our lifetime?

What's wrong with you? We are so far off it's not even funny.

>>382487759
>Nobody would call a computer "cheater" long as the hitboxes were fair.
Wrong. It would spur the same kind of response when someone learns they have been beaten by a child, or a woman. Instead of owning up to it, they would seek a way to discredit the one that beat them.

>>382488112
that was due to bad camera, that's not fair at all, they programmed it to do that automatically so you would get hit regardless unless you blocked, do it again and block, that's not smart that's repetition.

>>382488305
Literally what in the fuck are you talking about?

>>382488529

As opposed to figuratively?

>>382482168
>When do you predict will videogame AI will have enough complex algorithms to actually earn the title of intelligence?

AI is just a surface that resembles intelligence, that's why it's artificial. Real intelligence is a hypercomplex abyssal phenomenon that we can barely model at all. One won't become the other because it's only something resembling intelligence (not that I'm complaining). Real-deal intelligence is indexed and shaped by simultaneous things for billions of years.

I think the confusion comes from people having very unintelligent definitions of intelligence. To think some aspergers-spectrum scientist will ever come up with an equivalent in zeroes and ones is more than a little mistaken.

>>382484041
This is a weird statement but it's somewhat true. Players would enjoy an artistic AI far more, as in, a character that doesn't just "play as effectively as possible", but contributes to the illusion of the world in an exciting way. A "smart AI", in a sense, wouldn't have be given that boundary.

>>382489194
We already have that though >>382488112

>>382489729
An artistic AI? I agree. All that's left is to escalate it and make enemies challenge more and more of our wits, which would ideally make games even more fun and beautiful at their surface level. I can imagine competitive gaming getting more phased out by delightful super-AIs.

>>382486594
>skinner boxes
If I have have to see this misused one more fucking time.

a 'game' which contains sapience is not a game, but a universe

>>382490882
how am i misusing it?

>>382482168
Around the same time videogames somehow become real universes that contain videogames.

How will we ever program an AI to experience pleasure?

>>382490328
>competitive gaming getting more phased out by delightful super-AIs

would never happens. The appeal of competitive gaming is the personalities, the celebs, the recore breaking... Imagine replacing all athletes with robots. It wouldnt be fun to watch or even bet on. Google would just win everytime.

>>382488132
indeed
i mean
a computer thinks nearly in velocity of light
if he could use the same thinking patterns as us we NEVER would win against them.

>>382492313
>google would just win everytime
are you implying the players wouldn't all just be google variants? you think anyone but google would be able to get in on that game at all?

>>382492313
>The appeal of competitive gaming is the personalities, the celebs, the recore breaking..

You're right about all of that, sometimes some hilarious and fun stuff comes from that world. At the same time, those are just things off to the sides of the games themselves, and when people get fixated on the side-stuff it's because they lack appreciation for games themselves (they literally "miss the point). That side-content is really hilarious and fun stuff at best, of course. It's just that at the center of the storm is the illusion the game gives way to, and that's something far better and more evocative than all of that (mostly goofy) chattering.

The illusion of the game speaks to feeling, but when that isn't happening, you can always digest it into some competition or conversation point (kind of like how certain women writing about games digest it into political feed). This is what degeneracy is, things get substituted for a social game. I imagine that lots of game players cling to it out of having nothing better to get out of games.

>>382493741
>best selling games with local and stable customer base ride on the social aspect
no shit sherlock. kikes figured that out since the 1st olympic.