Have any of you attempted to model an AI after human irrationality? It's an interesting thought, how people can sometimes be unpredictable or unreasonable. I've been thinking of using an AI that factors in its circumstances in the game world, its experiences (like counting how many times its been shot), and then calculate all of it until it reaches an endpoint where it takes action. For instance, what if the AI has been shot plenty of times. They AI will factor that in, and then randomly decide whether to run away, or to charge in rage. Any thoughts? - DarkMage139 "Real game developers don't change the rules. Real game developers don't break the rules. Real game developers make the rules!" "Originality (in games) is the spice of life!" Edited by - DarkMage139 on 7/6/00 10:11:46 AM

Sounds like FF limits

Yep really, what are FF limits if not a unbelievable strong reaction to a moderate or minor event ?

Isn''t the limit ''jauge'' reflecting the moment at which you''ll break up and explode ?

I do think so


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

An AI works explicitly from the current world state which include it''s own internal state. It could have an emotional factor that is augmented over time, which could mean suddenly or over a course of many hours. On a different thread I suggested using the emotional state of the AI to limit the course of action it could take. Whether it would carry out a violent/passive/planned/reactive course of action. Work out an emotional state (like fear) and decide how that state would affect whatever mechanism you''re using to decide the final choice of action i.e. have a finite state machine for each general course of action (fight, flee, barter, acquiesce) and use the emotional state to decide which actions within the finite state machine to use.

Mike

Human Irrationality is a real thing. If we were to model AI without it, we would assume a Spock-Like character, who has no emotion, and works solely on logic. However, a real person character model would go berzerk, and act in desparation. No game has sought to fully emulate this, as all our enemies are like Spock, cold, calculating and totally devoid of care and other ideas. I think It''s a good idea, if you can program "emotion" or emotionall situations at least. Just like Data, he gets confused with his emotion chip, because it is illogical. We know that AI is what we tell the computer to do, and we are lacking in actual "human".

It was done in X-Com. Your soldiers sometimes went beserk and started firing off rounds, or paniced and dropped all their gear.

From memory, i read about them doing it in Close Combat (i think that''s the one, the MS rts). Like, the units sometimes wouldn''t do what you told ''em



Sam
Space Cadet''s DJ Random, Thinker, and Geek at heart.

I don''t believe there is such a thing as Irrationality.
It''s just things that we don''t fully understand. Just because we can''t understand something doesn''t mean it''s wrong, unexplainable, evil, or whatever other qualificative you can find.
Take the example of the "berserk" effect. Basically, it''s a desperate act when facing an ultimate danger. A soldier is cornered, an knowing he is gonna die, react in a "off the edge" manner. A massive adrenaline rush, if your body can''t stand it you just get totally dumb, prostrated, in a foetal posture. But if you can takeit, your abilities just get boosted to their limit, and you become a war machine, with no consideration to any danger or damage you might take (this kind of consideration being blocked by the adrenaline).
Well, at least that''s my explanation.

Making this kind of "edge effect" by using randmoness is a *BIG* mistake, because unless the randomness happens at the very end of other choices, the player might not like it at all.
The case study would be Close Combat (Microsoft games) where I good friend of mine saw is soldiers refuse to take orders, for some reason (I am pretty sure it was in Close Combat).
If the player can''t see WHY this happens, you get him pissed off.
On the other hand, if 5 troopers keep standing after the rest of their company was just wiped by artillery fire, you as the player, would understand that your soldiers are just cannon fodder still standing. You would now check that the remaining soldiers blow a fuse or not, by testing their morale (elite units don''t break as easily as leavy troops), and if they fail, THEN, you could have a nice little touch of "irrationality" by having them either "go berserk", or procrastinate, or run away (which is probably the most reasonable solution, since thy could survive); with, say, 10%/20%/70% chances. In any case, they would probably be useless since they couldn''t defend, and even if they attack, the fact that the rest of their company just got wiped is a good indication that they wouldn''t be very harmful.

People like realism to a certain point. If you give them control, don''t take it back by having things like soldiers getting scared before the assault, and refusing orders.
Of course, I am talking for a main stream game ("look mummy, I am commanding an army, so I am a strategist !"). Real tabletop Wargamers LIKE realism. But they didn''t wait for computers to play their favorite battles, so I think you can forget them anyway.

youpla :-P

ps : note for the last joke, that I am far from being a strategist. I get regularly beaten at any type of RTS or wargame, except by the computers ... which is to say how bad it plays

You do not believe in irrationality? Apparently there are no women where ahw lives...

Seriously though, there is such thing as irrational thoughts. If there were not there would be no such thing as rational thoughts... Here are a couple of examples for you...

Observation: You wore a blue shirt today.
Conclusion: I bet you drive a blue car.

Observation: It is a nice day to go swimming.
Conclusion: I bet the next person who reads this post is tall.

Observation: That guy works at microsoft.
Conclusion: I bet he is a good programmer.



Later,
Eck

P.S. ....If she weighs as much as a duck...


Edited by - Eck on August 4, 2000 4:50:02 PM

quote: Original post by Eck
You do not believe in irrationality? Apparently there are no women where ahw lives...

ROFL

Indeed, I forgot this part of Humanity. But I thikn they assume the exact same of us ...

Anyway, just to say that non-sense is not irrational. As programmers will tell you, there is no such thing as Randomness.

Nor "unparticular" for that matter; did ou ever did geometry, draw a triangle, a non particular trangle. Well, most of the time, it seems that we draw particular triangle (with a property, you know). And so, a mathematician hose name I don''t remember, decided to describe, "the perfectly non particular triagle"...

youpla :-P

When you say you want to model human irrationality on a computer you are up for a tough task. Computers are competely rational and are only capable of symbolic manipulation. I''d go so far as to teach a purely rational thing to be irrational.

Animals, on the other hand, live on instict (a.k.a. irrationality). Your AI model must emulate animal behavior. I think you see where I''m going here. Try using a neural network. You will be suprised by the results as long as you train it well.

-Jordan Andersen
jordan@u.washington.edu

I would like to apologize for my completly incoherent previous post. Just check out neural networks while I take a nap.