One thing, the word intelligence is being used in 2 ways.

1) to mean an intelligent or good decision maker as opposed to a stupid or poor decision maker. In this version the concept of making choices are not making choices is not at issue, only the observer's judgement of the entity's body of choices as being relatively (or absolutely) good or bad.

2) to mean an intelligent "lifelike" agent as opposed to a deterministic controlled agent. In this meaning the issue is not primarily about the quality of an entity's actions, but instead about the observer's attribution of self-determination to the agent, usually by the fact that the observer's senses, reasoning and knowledge do not lead them to conclude that the entity's behavior is likely to be fully explanable by some trivial (but perhaps currently unknown) ruleset.

In both of the above cases, often the guidline for labeling something as intelligent is that it should be thought to be up to or near the same general order as the observer himself (so an intermediate chess player labels intermediate or better play as intelliegent, and a reasoning mamal probably considers behavior similar to that of a reasoning mamal as lifelike). Of course people are educated as a community whose meta-views change over time ... so we don't really determine intelligence by a natural innate process anymore, but instead more by the guidelines that we we argued about or we're taught we're appropriate while growing up ... so some societies think animals are intelligent, and others only call humans intelligent, some think other tribes and cultures are savages and other view them as peers with different histories. So some about of this process of determination is simply rote learning ... like learning which of a set of synonyms is appropriate for which idiomatic expressions ...

(no time to finish now, will try to continue later)

I think that sums it up nicely. You could make it much longer, and still say the same thing.

There was a game once (the one I wrote way back when), with a very simple state machine that changed NPC scripts based on a very limited set of player actions and the passage of time, that convinced many players that the NPCs were out there plotting and scheming.

hmmm, ah i get it. it seems appropriate becasue it is in fact not "true" intelligence, and "true" intelligence doesnt always react in the way we think it should, in fact it nearly always doesnt. and like sum1 said, not all reactions come form external stimili.hmmm very good

from an uninformed observer, a football could be percived to be intelegent, it runs away from being kicked: hense illusion! I think this is a question of degree of information, not necisarily weither the object is truly intelegent or not.

As humans, it suits our perceptions to anthropomorphize everything. The less "human" something is, the more distanced we will feel from it. Good game AI, therefore, has to give not the illusion of intelligence in general, but the illusion of HUMAN intelligence. Make it act like a person (regardless of the game - imagine an RTS AI that carried grudges), and you'll find players are only to willing to believe it is and forgive the illusion its faults.

Quote: Original post by Merlz
As humans, it suits our perceptions to anthropomorphize everything. The less "human" something is, the more distanced we will feel from it. Good game AI, therefore, has to give not the illusion of intelligence in general, but the illusion of HUMAN intelligence. Make it act like a person (regardless of the game - imagine an RTS AI that carried grudges), and you'll find players are only to willing to believe it is and forgive the illusion its faults.

I agree. Players will gladly believe there is intelligence if the entity doesn't do the same thing every time, without memory or emotions, even if shallowly simulated.

Quote: Original post by Timkin
Hi guys,

I'm presently re-writing a subject on game AI and I wanted to get your reactions to the following statement (so that I can gauge the types of responses I might get from students):

The 'illusion of intelligence' is the perception of an appropriate change of behaviour of another entity, induced by an external cause.


If you choose to respond, could include whether you agree or disagree with this statement and given your position, briefly why you think that way. What I'm specifically interested in is what you think this statement means and implies.

Cheers,

Timkin

You wouldn't by any chance be rewriting *my* article, would you? ;-)

Bob Scott

I'd say that the "illusion of intellegence" is the perception that the entity has arrived a decision given the state of the world around them and taking into account past experinces that the observer would consider a valid choice.

Let me think this from an opposite point of view. The illusion of intelligence is actually in the mind of the beholder. I say it is not the attribute of the entity, but the observer. So actually there are two things to consider.

1. Is the initial illusion created. If player is immersed in the game the and entity he sees appears to be of something with an intelligence the illusion is created. It could be talking clock or ball that moves against the laws of physics, but that is the moment that creates the initial illusion.

2. Sustaining the illusion. After that the player will constantly judge the entity by its actions and responses and if it is a competition it will try to challenge the entity. This is where your AI has the most work. As an empirical experience the illusion is broken the moment the entity does something unitelligent ie. get stuck behind the stairs or say same phrase twice. It is not acting truly intelligent as making real conversations or doing some skillful manouvers as the player will be forgiving that as at some level they understand that it is just an illusion of intelligence. But when the entity does something outright stupid as mentioned above the illusion is broken as is part of the immersion in the game.

So I would say 'Illusion of intelligence is manifested by the observant during the first contact and maintained by appropriate change of behaviour induced by an external cause'

Br, Vikke

As a sidestory the illusion of intelligence during playing Star Control II was very real when I played it first time and the stupid conversations and stereotypical behaviour and answers in the game were okay. But the first time I entered battle with Thraddash Torch which leaves burning flames in the space and the enemy ships always flew straight to them, the illusion was broken. I was playing against just a computer. But until that moment I thought they are really aliens with intergalactic intelligence. ;)

Quote: Original post by vmatikainen
Let me think this from an opposite point of view. The illusion of intelligence is actually in the mind of the beholder. I say it is not the attribute of the entity, but the observer. So actually there are two things to consider.

I don't see why that is the 'opposite point of view'. That's the very perspective I'm attempting to convey... that an illusion is a property of observation... and in this case, the illusion is to do with intelligence (and whether intelligence is present or not is irrelevant).

Sorry Bob, but I don't know who you are in RL, nor am I familiar with your article. I'm re-writing a 3rd year university course on AI for Autonomous Agents (which is given concurrently to robotics students and game development students). Do you have a link to your article? If you've considered this issue previously, I'd be interested in reading your work.

Cheers,

Timkin