[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: designing socially-constructive spaces



David Galiel wrote :
Artificial illusions of intelligent dialog, emotion, and particularly creativity are not convincing, particularly not when one can easily compare them to the real thing. Being "almost" real is often worse that being clearly machine, because of that uncanny valley phenomenon.
There is (or should be) no point in comparing to the real thing, because AI-based Interactive Drama is different from Story/Drama generation. Interactive Drama is not evaluated according to the quality of its output but according to how this output comes from the user input.


 I have yet to hear a compelling reason why we have to devote so much time, energy and budget to making artificial humans, when we have a potential market of hundreds of millions of real humans with a multimedia PC and an Internet connection, just dying for an opportunity to get involved in network-mediated collaborate storytelling--but uninterested in the current crop of "interactive" entertainment.

"network-mediated collaborate storytelling" is a nice idea. It is however quite different from AI-based Interactive Drama. Both ideas shouldn't be investigated, even if the market is more ready for one or another option?


Even when talking about procedurally-generated visuals, such artifices should be employed, in my understanding, only when the human-generated alternative is highly impractical. It makes sense for Spore's terrain, less so for a virtual art gallery. We should not be so hasty to automate for automation's sake.

Yes, one should not. In Interactive Drama, automation is not used to replace human-generated alternative but to do something different: letting the user act upon the system (again: interactive, not generative).

In a previous post, you wrote:
>There is a critical distinction between "generated" and "mediated". Often, it seems those obsessed with generating eventual, possible, replacements to >human creativity are determined to shout down those of us interested in how technology can, *today*, mediate, facilitate, empower and scale human >storytelling.

Again, you seem to omit the fact that Interactive Drama is not about generation. Between "generated" and "mediated", there is "interacted". I believe that many of us here are interested in "interacted story", with no will to replace human creativity.

This is true that often, to achieve interactivity we use (or need) generativity. But on has to keep in mind that the mean is not the end.


Nicolas
www.idtension.com


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005