How is using an FSM cheating? When developers (and people in general) refer to cheating AI they''re usually talking about AI that breaks game rules inorder to play the game better, not the way the AI was coded.

techpage - If Gaiiden is correct (and I am assuming he is), then according to the article you read :

"cheating" AI - is AI that *appears* as though it might be intelligent, although the underlying code is not complex enough to really be ''intelligence''.

"honest" AI - is AI that does really have some underlying code which we can say is ''intelligent''.

The terminology is less than desirable because of the confusing between that definition of "cheating" and the natural definition of "cheating" in the way that rules of the game can be altered in favour of the computer.
And there doesn''t seem to be any real way to differentiate the two classes. The only thing I can think of is that honest AI is AI that learns while cheating AI does not. But I''m not sure if that is the intended definition. If so then they could have better names, otherwise I don''t think the two terms are useful.

Yes Argus, that''s what I meant. However I''ve also finally realized the other definition that''s been kicked around:

quote:

---

Original post by techpage
Cheating AI -- An approach to Game AI that uses and takes benefits from confidential world information in order to create the illusion of intelligence.

Honest AI -- An approach to Game AI that uses only pure and legal information, which is also valid to the human player.

---

That''s certainly another way of looking at it, Techpage. You could call that cheating and honest AI as well. On one hand we''re looking and the mechanics of the AI ("cheating" == simple state machines) whereas on the other hand we could look at the way the AI uses information ("cheating" == using confidential world info instead of reasoning on its own). Both definitions are different tho, and shouldn''t be used together.

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

I''d have to disagree with Argus''s definitions of cheating AI and honest AI. Now fundamentally it does come down to the definitions of AI. Is AI something that behaves intelligently or thinks intelligently? This is a LARGE debate in the AI community but I think that as far as games go, it is decidedly in the realm of action, not thought.

As to cheating vs honest...techpage has the right idea.

Cheating AI is AI that has access to information and methods that are not available and would not be available to the players. This includes things like knowing resouce locations w/o scouting, knowing health of enemies, being able to build things faster, etc...

Honest AI is AI that plays by the "rules" of the game. These rules are the same that bind the human players. Basically if its cheating in multiplayer then its cheating for AI too.

Turn around your black box analogy and look at it this way.

Cheating AI is any AI which is allowed to use methods not available to the player. That''s it.

Later,
ZE.

jermz - Those aren''t my definitions at all. They are the definitions used in the article to which the original poster was referring. I don''t think they are particularly good ones which should have been clear from my posts.

Maybe "cheating in the creation of AI" might have been the best way to put things initially.

Ok this is stupid. What’s wrong with the AI appearing intelligent even though it isn''t? It CAN''T be intelligent! It''s not alive and it can''t think. If it could it would truly be amazing and probably wouldn''t be used in a game anyway. And it doesn’t matter how they made it work, just the fact that it works as good as it does. So stop complaining!

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Ok this is stupid. What’s wrong with the AI appearing intelligent even though it isn''t? It CAN''T be intelligent! It''s not alive and it can''t think. If it could it would truly be amazing and probably wouldn''t be used in a game anyway. And it doesn’t matter how they made it work, just the fact that it works as good as it does. So stop complaining!

---

You obviously don''t analyze your games very thouroughly.

Later,
ZE.

The ''troll'' ap here again, and this actually has to do with
the original post, wow, I''ve never seen so many people
restate what each of the others has been saying so many times.

Gaiiden, I think the point was made somewhere along the way
but what''s the difference between ''looking smart'' and being
smart. FSM''s are shortcuts. How do you decide to go left
or right? It takes you billions of brain cells. AI
merely provides a way to reach intelligence without all the
brains, hard-coding what you must calculate.

Anyway, I don''t remember which post, but I''ll say it here, I
don''t think something has to be alive to be intelligent.

Geta, I apologize, apparently none of you are taking ENG 111 or
112 at the moment. I shall explain.
First off, I told you not to be offended, don''t blame me for not
listening.
Second, I told you to attack the evidence. I said that since
everyone complains, you guys suck. So your outlash seems to
be more directed at yourself than me because you do not
believe in your abilities as an ai programmer? Or what is more
likely is that it is anger over the third and intended meaning
of ''dedicated''(but kudos for realizng there were at least two
ways to perceive that word-this is why I like writing so much,
the subtle nuances).
The way I meant ''dedicated'' to be interpreted is as follows,
you are indeed THE ai programmer on the team, but the ai still
does not receive the attention, the DEDICATION to quality that
it deserves, which in turn leads to the state of ai being
looked at as still poor and unprofessional. In other words,
if you are viewed as a resource, which you are, than your
talents are not as dedicated to the project as you perceive.
Looking back to the first part of the condition, "Since
everybody complains...", well, I for one do not. I believe that
overall, game ai is fair. The real question is, do people
that complain have grounds for doing so? You claim to be an
ai programmer so you should have jumped at that one I thought.
If they do or do not have grounds for complaining, the real
question is then, what''s the truth, #1 or #2? Not enough
resources are dedicated( ) to ai or that the state of game ai
even if given proper resources is still inadequate because the
techniques are not developed and no one has come up with
something better or is unable to implement it. Saying "you
guys suck" was off, it should have been more like "you don''t
possess the capability". Anyway, choosing ''suck'' was based on
the end of the post, if you got that far. Constructive arguing
is fine of course, but you can scream logic until you''re blue
in the face but sometimes it just doesn''t matter which means
that flames will continue to burn as illustrated by the final
few lines. Someone declares that we will all be civil and
everyone is silent as they think it over, but there just has
to be one more, which of course sets everyone else back into
their previous habits. Again, language is neat, I chose
"possess the capabilities" rather than "have the ability"
which I believe is the insulting way to put it because that way
precludes that it is a personal fault while possession connotes
that it is a more tangible item that can be interacted with
on a physical level, although I could be wrong on that one too
because senses(sight, hearing, smell, etc.) are used with
''possess'' and are thought of as intrinsic to the individual.

AP, dude, get a name. You may be insulting, and off on a few points, but you''re a genius. If you already have a name, I''d strongly encourage you to put it with your thoughts, but that seems to be what you''re avoiding.

At any rate, "appearing intelligent," as it''s currently defined, is not an appropriate phrase. Merely, current AI is programmed just enough to not look stupid to the average gamer. The context of discussion in many other forums and even threads in this forum on this site is game development (hence the name), so we take a deeper look that the average gamer would. We are, in a sense, more analytical in our thinking, as I mentioned in an earlier post, so being programmed just beyond stupidity is not good enough, and until we face that fact, we will stumble over ourselves and not take any steps forward at all.

"Dedicated Game AI Programmers," I wouldn''t claim that name at this point. Simply put, game AI is primitive and stupid in every sense of the word at this point. We shouldn''t judge you harshly, because AI is one of the newest computer technologies around. However, sound, input, and all parts of graphics have taken leaps and bounds leaving AI behind in past years. I submit that this is not because it requires large amounts of power or research, but because we have not established paradigms for its methods or dedicated ourselves to making it work well.

There are a number of reasons for that last line, but I''ll only focus on one here, since I don''t think many people will read a post this long anyway. It is this: AI is not particularly visible when games are running just quickly enough for the player to survive. We''ve embraced the fact that the player is going to be looking away from the AI most of the time, and that has to stop.

Later,
ZE.