One of the crazy possibilities that many people would not have thought feasible even a decade ago is starting to show itself on the horizon. I don't even think it's possible in the current day but I do not doubt somewhere someone is working on it now. Somewhere a computer is now or in the near future being trained to create video games.
Let's get into the juice of what I am saying. This isn't some claim made by someone coming off an acid trip or a who smoked too much because that would mean my life is more interesting than it is. In fact, this was brought on by an article featured in Science titled "How Google is making music with artificial intelligence." In brief, the article is a high-level interview with one of Google's team leads Douglas Eck. He described how they had been working on teaching a computer by it learning from example rather than an algorithm. Rather than creating rules of what a song is, they send in song after song until it learns what a song is. This allows the AI some level of "creativity" in its composition. They are essentially trying to recreate our ability to be creative in computers. There is actually a really good example of what computers can already do in the CGP Grey video "Humans Need Not Apply".
On top of the push for creativity, computers are getting better at writing code. As covered in the Wired article "SOON WE WON'T PROGRAM COMPUTERS. WE'LL TRAIN THEM LIKE DOGS", we are coming to a time where computers will be able to write code for us. The author of the article Jason Taz explains how the code is just logic. If there is one thing that computers are already good at it is logic. Using machine learning the computers are given tasks to perform with code and they are getting better at solving them.
Philosophically there can be a debate on what creativity actually is. If something is programmed to a certain action is it that program being creative or the programmer? Is what we are seeing is an example of a group creativity project or are we seeing true creativity being replicated artificially? These things are beyond the scope of what I want to talk about here and most likely out of my range of ability to answer.
Machine learning has brought us incredible advancements in what we know and understand about people. With incredible speed, we are able to send large quantities of data into a linear regressions model, decisions trees, and other algorithms I really should know but don't so pretend they are here. These calculations that would have taken a person several months to get through can now be done in hours by a single machine. Machines that are getting cheaper and easier to build.
Let's get into the juice of what I am saying. This isn't some claim made by someone coming off an acid trip or a who smoked too much because that would mean my life is more interesting than it is. In fact, this was brought on by an article featured in Science titled "How Google is making music with artificial intelligence." In brief, the article is a high-level interview with one of Google's team leads Douglas Eck. He described how they had been working on teaching a computer by it learning from example rather than an algorithm. Rather than creating rules of what a song is, they send in song after song until it learns what a song is. This allows the AI some level of "creativity" in its composition. They are essentially trying to recreate our ability to be creative in computers. There is actually a really good example of what computers can already do in the CGP Grey video "Humans Need Not Apply".
On top of the push for creativity, computers are getting better at writing code. As covered in the Wired article "SOON WE WON'T PROGRAM COMPUTERS. WE'LL TRAIN THEM LIKE DOGS", we are coming to a time where computers will be able to write code for us. The author of the article Jason Taz explains how the code is just logic. If there is one thing that computers are already good at it is logic. Using machine learning the computers are given tasks to perform with code and they are getting better at solving them.
Philosophically there can be a debate on what creativity actually is. If something is programmed to a certain action is it that program being creative or the programmer? Is what we are seeing is an example of a group creativity project or are we seeing true creativity being replicated artificially? These things are beyond the scope of what I want to talk about here and most likely out of my range of ability to answer.
It's curious to think about but the day where we buy a title created by nothing more than AI. Today it is not a far off fantasy but quite possibly something we will see in our time. In fact, for all we know, this already happened. Maybe our robot overlords have graced us with their first title in the thousands of games being unloaded on Steam.(Going to see where this is at the end of the month before I write on it) Most likely not and that dump is just a conglomerate of asset flips and RPG maker "originals". Still, in a not to off future the credits might not be filled with human names but programs.
Comments
Post a Comment