User comment history
< Newer [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Older >
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
 |
| 14. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 30, 2008, 16:58 |
Fang |
|
|
So, if each user is a simulator training your A.I., how does it remove the processing burden from the end user?
It's removing the higher level planning from the end user. Today's games don't have very much of it, because of CPU limitations.
The end user is still running the physics simulator (hopefully running much faster on the graphics card) and managing the game world. The point of this isn't to free up CPU cycles on the end user, because very little of it is being used for higher-order planning. It's to provide something that isn't being done (or only in a very limited fashion) right now.
You are now contradicting yourself from earlier, this is no-longer real time with regards to gameplay.
You only think this because you don't understand how reinforcement learning works.
The model-based controller in the helicopter is running in real time. In the same way, the software agents in the end-users game would be running in real time. Don't confuse the learning process with action process. The action process response from the central AI server (the "here are my observation what should I do") can occur very quickly, especially since the goal isn't to give a truly optimal answer, but instead a best guess given the current learning level. It's the equivalent of a database query. The learning process (which took a day with the helicopter example) is about generating a higher order plan that does something truly intelligent, like fly a helicopter upside, or respond to an ever changing tactical situation. This occurs in the central AI server farm, so it doesn't have to be done for each user. This is where you get all of your processing savings compared to the current inefficient design.
At first, the game's agents probably won't be that smart. But with 100,000 simulators, the central AI server would probably start giving very intelligent actions pretty quickly.
Kind of like the Folding/SETI@Home programs. The more systems you have, the faster you can solve the problem.
Think of it this way. Do you remember the Sony AIBO? The little robotic dog they made? Each dog, when it comes out of the box has a limited controller that is passable for what people expect. Kind of like today's games. Now if each of these dogs were networked with a central server, the central server can issue the policies for how it thinks the controller should behave. This occurs very quickly and with little overhead. It will take time for the actions to truly become intelligent, but the dogs will work, and the games will play. If you had 100,000 dogs working at the same time, it would happen very quickly.
Of course, there is a exploration vs exploitation tradeoff, but I won't get into that.
Since most single player games have already been designed to run with a multiplayer server, there really isn't that much more overhead you are adding to the user client. And unlike in a multiplayer game, you can continue to let the client handle the gameworld physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 12. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 29, 2008, 22:34 |
Fang |
|
|
And you prove my point about why you can't just hire some programmers to try to do this, and you need computer scientists.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You're trying to just scale old AI algorithms and assume the implementers would design it stupidly. That 10% would be mostly redundant for each user.
For example, how much processing power do you think it takes to have a computer fly a real helicopter upside down, and perform other acrobatic maneuvers that no human could possibly perform? It has been done, and its a lot less than you'd expect. It does take a day before hand to train it though in a simulator.
A proper design would have the centralized server (more like a server farm, no need to use expensive supercomputers like enahs suggests) taking inputs from all users and combining it to create a robust policy for specific observations that the client-based agents generate. Each additional user is actually a simulator to train the centralized AI. And a policy query to the central server farm would just be a database query.
As a computer scientist, this scenario would be amazing for me. Can you imagine having access to 100,000 simulators to train your algorithm? Eegads, right now I can only run 1 simulator at a time.
So in fact, more users will greatly increase the centralized AI's available processing power. Of course, it would have to be able to integrate the data these users generate, but the necessary server farm would be on the order of magnitude of a web server farm handling the same number of concurrent users.
If you don't quite understand this, I'd recommend taking a look into POMDPs and Policy Search by Dynamic Programming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 9. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 29, 2008, 16:38 |
Fang |
|
|
The amount of processing power required for that would be huge.
Not if you design it correctly. It's possible to use linear dynamic programming to apply machine learning techniques.
One example of a leap forward in applied AI algorithms is with Bayesian spam filters. They can update their models very quickly and they work reasonably well once trained. Much better than the spam filters that came before them.
That's just an example, and there are plenty of cutting edge AI techniques that will scale very well, especially since the point of this would be to run a centralized learning system. No need to relearn for each user.
Obviously, you can't just hire more programmers to try to implement it; you'll have to hire true computer scientists to implement a next-gen AI solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 7. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 29, 2008, 00:48 |
Fang |
|
|
Worst idea ever?
I'm sure that's what people said about paying $15/month to play a MMO. Who would want to do that? That's paying $180/year to just play one game! Well, we know how well that worked out for Blizzard. Aren't they going bankrupt pretty soon?
If a developer was just running the same old AI code on a server, that would be silly. The point of this would be to be able to utilize another machine to be able to do next-gen AI. Currently, the user's CPU is getting hammered trying to handle the graphics and physics. Right now, there's a tradeoff on how much CPU you can dedicate to the AI without impacting framerate.
What if we could apply machine learning techniques to make the computer much more life-like? Or do you just prefer playing against the same dumb enemies?
Maybe paying $20 for a year subscription to a single player game with jaw-dropping AI (or however the business model turns out) is not something you would be interested in. To be honest, I'm not that interested in paying $15/month for a multiplayer game, no matter how massive it is. So I don't. However, many people do pay for WoW, and I'm sure there's a business model that would work for a subscription to a game AI server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 3. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 28, 2008, 13:33 |
Fang |
|
|
I wonder how much bandwidth is needed to stream a gameplay screen (ie. DirectX output) to a user. Probably too much.
What if a developer created their single player game to run all their AI on developer run servers? It would put a serious cramp on piracy, as long as the AI servers don't get out into the wild.
Of course, users would be aware that that if the developer/publisher goes under, then the game no longer works. The company should probably sell it as a subscription service for a specified time period and price it accordingly.
Hrmm, this would kind of be like an MMO without the multiplayer aspect of it. I'd be curious to see the impact on sales to a developer like Crysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Evening Consolidation |
|
| 2. |
Re: Young/Old |
Jun 6, 2008, 23:10 |
Fang |
|
|
This is a link to an article about an article about the study.
If you read the original article, it shows they have the numbers for 27+ the PS3 reversed. Here's is the update on IGN:
Update: Nielsen contacted IGN to let us know some of this data is incorrect. The Wii numbers remain unchanged, but in the 27+ demographic the 360 and PS3 numbers should be switched. This drastically changes the meaning of the data, revealing that the 360 receives the most use from all ages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Battlefield 2142 Patch |
|
| 12. |
Re: No subject |
May 30, 2008, 15:40 |
Fang |
|
|
Wow, looking at those numbers, no wonder why >U/Riley is always so pissed at Valve. They have over 240x the number of players as his game (FEAR) does. 240 times!! I'd add the NOLF series, but it looks like FlatOut2 and Flight Simulator 2006 beat it out for the top 40 spots.
He's too busy writing screeds about Valve's evilness to make compelling games that stand the test of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 8. |
Re: No subject |
May 27, 2008, 15:49 |
Fang |
|
|
And supposedly, if someone recommends a game they own to you, it will be available for you to purchase.
However, about older "great" games still being available, the point is that they are considering games that both reviewers and customers have panned, games that score less than 65 on metacritic and have poor sales.
So if it does get recommended to you... you'll have to think hard if you trust your friend and his opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Tech Bits |
|
| 3. |
Re: PS3 as Blu-ray player |
May 26, 2008, 14:26 |
Fang |
|
|
Haha, the article made a sony fanboy get his panties in a twist and register for the first time just to flame Blue.
Relax, little kid. Those of us with cash and a high level of perfection for their home theater setup want to know details like these before spending the time and money.
For me, the second point is the most important point, since I really care about excessive ambient noise from my hardware. I've spent quite a bit to custom build my MythTV box to get almost no noise from it. I can assure you, that whatever Blu-Ray player I pick up will be one of the quietest.
Oh, and maybe you're too busy putting gas in your extra large SUV, but some of us care about the environment and if all other things are equal, will choose the lower power consumption option.
This comment was edited on May 26, 14:30. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 38. |
Re: No subject |
May 23, 2008, 16:34 |
Fang |
|
|
My personal guess would be a majority of the time the frequency is high to begin with and it lowers over time.
I guess my point earlier was that the driving factor for frequency is probably age, not as much marriage status. However, age and marriage status are correlated, so it's easy to mix up the causation.
Also, the pill is known to decrease desire, which may also explain why there is a reported uptick in desire for women in their 40's, when many stop taking it due to other more permanent birth control measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Evening Consolidation |
|
| 2. |
Re: Gaywood |
May 22, 2008, 23:47 |
Fang |
|
|
Anyone have "straight" or a variant in their gamertag?
Microsoft has said that they would ban those also, if they found any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 27. |
Re: No subject |
May 22, 2008, 20:29 |
Fang |
|
|
Poor Batman, he's just speaking from his own experience.
Just like all other aspects of a relationship, physical intimacy is something that you have to work on. Sure, the frequency changes as you go through life, but do you really think you'll be picking up lots of women when you're 40+ and hitting the bar scene? The average guy isn't.
This is one of the surveys that I'm referring to:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/news/20061031/world-sex-survey-reveals-surprises
Note the second bullet on the list of major findings.
There are other surveys (specifically focused on industrialized nations, if that's your concern) that have been conducted that also reaffirm this finding.
Here you go, from Durex:
http://marriage.about.com/cs/sexualstatistics/a/sexstatistics.htm
It's almost 2:1 for married vs. single.
This comment was edited on May 22, 20:45. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 23. |
Re: No subject |
May 22, 2008, 17:29 |
Fang |
|
|
You are naive if you think a divorce will save you money. It will cost you far, far more than you ever think you will save.
A recent study showed that a great predictor of a lasting marriage is how nice/mean a couple was to each other when they fought. So if you haven't learned on how to argue with your spouse, you should look into it. There are some basic ground rules that you can start on.
Because while it may seem that there are other fish in the sea, if you don't know how to maintain a relationship, those will fail also. And being alone will get depressing.
In terms of physical intimacy frequency, surveys have also shown that you have a much higher frequency if you are married than if you have to try to go out and meet someone at a bar all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 10. |
Re: No subject |
May 20, 2008, 14:39 |
Fang |
|
|
Well, reading other reviews for Haze, and it seems that IGN is reflecting the early reviews of the game. 56% average on metacritic with 3 reviews. When you get that low, what's 11 points?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 21. |
Driving |
May 16, 2008, 16:13 |
Fang |
|
|
Blue,
With all your near misses, maybe its not everyone else, but you. I know you mentioned that you recently started driving. Your inexperience may be the driving factor here.
There is a reason why most accidents occur to those between the ages of 16-20. Sure, there is a propensity for speed among young males, but this includes young females, too. The common demoninator is the lack of experience.
My guess is that as you get more experience you will learn what to expect from other drivers before it becomes a problem or a near accident. It's really about becoming a defensive driver, and not just learning the rules of the road.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_driving
Just tossing that out there. I drive in downtown Boston a lot. That's a great place to hone up on your defensive driving skills 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Op Ed |
|
| 19. |
Re: No subject |
May 4, 2008, 15:10 |
Fang |
|
|
The highest res that you can do on consoles is either 720p (1280x720) or 1080p (1920x1080) and pseudo (like Halo 3) resolutions in-between.
Just a minor correction, Halo 3 doesn't run in between 720p and 1080p, its resolution is technically 640p. Albeit with a double frame buffer to handle the lighting, but the actual resolution is 1152x640, and it is just scaled to HDTV resolutions.
http://www.bungie.net/news/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12821
That may be what you meant, but just clarifying it for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 14. |
Who is >U/Riley? |
Apr 28, 2008, 13:18 |
Fang |
|
|
Most of Blue's News readers have probably come across >U/Riley Pizt rants against Valve by now. Most have just assumed its some random internet fanboy, but its actually an industry veteran that has decided to anonymously post anti-Valve screeds.
I submit that Riley/>U is actually Jason Hall, founder of Monolith. He became a Senior VP at Warner Bros IE, and then turned around and had WBIE purchase Monolith.
While my supporting evidence is circumstantial, I believe it makes a compelling case:
1) No matter what you think of his rantings on Valve, he knows quite a bit about the gaming industry. It's safe to say that he is an industry veteran.
2) >U has revealed that he "works" for Monolith. In previous threads, he has given out CD keys for F.E.A.R. As a General Manager at WBIE, he would be in the position to do this.
3) He's revealed that he knows Samantha Ryan, the current CEO of Monolith. Before he edited his post, it sounded like she was a subordinate to him. Unfortunately, this most compelling piece of evidence is gone since he edited his post.
4) If you read his threads, he never has to prove himself to anyone because as an industry heavyweight, he has the internal confidence so that he does not have to.
5) Compare >U threads to written interviews with Jason Hall. You'll notice they both have similar styles. (I admit, this could be coincindental).
I wonder if this feud (albeit one-sided) has anything to do with the Valve/Vivendi lawsuit that Valve won. Was there a close friend of Jason's that got burned in that lawsuit? There is nothing like a lawsuit to create some long-standing bad blood.
So next time you try to argue with him, realize two things: One, he's accomplished a lot more in the game industry than you have, and two, there is more to this story that we haven't learned about yet.
I'd really be interested if a gaming journalist would do some digging and try to shed more light on this.
The questions that I have are:
1) Why stay anonymous? If his criticisms are legitimate, then why doesn't he stand behind his arguments publically?
2) Why the bad blood? Has Valve done something to Jason or his friends?
3) Has anyone else found evidence in >U posts that reveals more about his identity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1073 Comments. 54 pages. Viewing page 16.
< Newer [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
