quote: Original post by Puzzler183
Well actually you are incorrect ExplosiveNewt. There are random quantum functions such as radioactive decay. There is actually hardware that you can buy giving you truly random number using this method, although they are not common.

A valid point, but one which only serves to undermine ExplosiveNewt''s point, which was a whole lot more valid.

no, they are not random, they just cannot be predicted...

Your definition of Random is the most important thing when deciding if "Randomness" exists.

Most people consider it to mean "cannot be predicted" or "has no pattern"(that''s the dictionary definition), and in that case humans can generate them. (ie there is nothing that can predict what number a person will say if you ask them for one, so according to said definition it is therefore random)

There are, of course, other definitons of "Random" which state they cant exist etc etc...

When arguing about stuff like this, it very quickly gets onto stuff like religion and origins etc, and from there its all opionated and unprovable :/



What i don''t understand is, whats wrong with pseudo-randomness in terms of AI? Why can''t a number generated from a huge range of maths and time be used in a decision making process?

quote: Original post by Smurfwow
(ie there is nothing that can predict what number a person will say if you ask them for one, so according to said definition it is therefore random)

True, you can''t by any deductive means predict what number a person will say. But... it has been shown statistically that if you ask people for a number between 1-10, a majority is going to say 7. Now this should not happen if we were truly choosing at random. I don''t know what factors are the reasons behind this, but it sure makes you think.

Despite appearences, I agree with you that who cares whether randomness is ''true'' or ''almost true''? For most purposes it''s not going to matter anyway.

Hull, that sounds very similar to what I've been doing, where each "leaf" of the tree is a process (yes we think processes, not organic data with fixed processes), the tree of course can be infinitly complex meaning it can solve any problem (theorectically), depending on the base language that generates the leaves/branches. Can I get in contact with you somehow?

Edit: I am hoping to write an article on this sometime, after I've made good examples of the 'fractal' ai in use.

[edited by - stevenmarky on March 31, 2002 8:41:09 AM]

I was not trying to "undermine" ExplosiveNewt''s point. I thought I made it clear that the hardware to generte truly random numbers was rarely used and almost no one had it. If this somehow escaped you then, don''t flame me for it.

In the future I will try not to contribute to the productivity of other at this forum. Thankyou for the advanced warning.

quote: Original post by Puzzler183
I was not trying to "undermine" ExplosiveNewt''s point. I thought I made it clear that the hardware to generte truly random numbers was rarely used and almost no one had it. If this somehow escaped you then, don''t flame me for it.

No, it''s just that randomness (especially in this context) really has no value (in my opinion). I think ExplosiveNewt made a valid point.

quote: Original post by Puzzler183
In the future I will try not to contribute to the productivity of other at this forum. Thankyou for the advanced warning.

You will be missed. You have taken what I said too seriously. I only pointed out your remark with reference to ExplosiveNewt''s. I could not possibly have anything critical to say about anything else you''ve said or will say without judging it on its own merits.

Ok, our problem is definattly our difference in the defination of Randomness... In my defination of randomness there is COMPLETLY No Evidiance of what it will be, and there for if you went over a moment, went back in time and replayed it it wouldn''t be the same number. I Belive that if you have a good enough computer, Caculated the Quantum State of everything in our closed system, you could predict the future with absoubsloute certianty... But it doesn''t really matter, what i was trying to say was that There is no need for randomness in the decision making of our AI.

In game AI the main point is to be believable.

If copious quantities of calls to rand() help you to do this, then so be it. Of course, even rand() is entirely deterministic. However, it is not deterministic to the player; he does not know the seed. Thus, it might as well be random - whatever that really means.

This brings me to my point: What we want in game AI is a response which is not deterministic given data available to the player. Whether this is achieved via rand(), or by making an FSM which is too complicated to predict, or by using MinMax search to "out-think" the player, doesn''t really matter. If the AI is believable and shows no unrealistically predictable pattern, then you''ve succeeded.

Personally, I am partial to more "intelligent" systems which use data about the problem rather than simple random numbers to do their thing. But, as I said, it''s only the end result that matters. Is it "true AI?" It might be if it can pass the Turing test!

I''ve given a bit of thought to "randomness" and "chance", and I''ve come up with this definition of chance (the same as randomness):
*Clears throat*
Chance is simply our representation of factors which we have not taken into account.
...which is why it is so useful in designing games. Once we have gone as deep as we want to into the complexities of designing - for instance - a weather system, we just add a "random" number to represent the rest of the factors. Much quicker than taking into account someone sneezing two miles away...
About that radioactive "real random number generator" - I''ve never heard of it, and am therefore not qualified to comment on it, but I would suggest that it''s simply that we don''t yet understand how the decay occurs. So the scientists just say it''s "random".
Anyway, just my 2c...

---------------

#define TRUE 0
#define FALSE 1
//MUAHAHAHAHAAAA!