The AI in Carmageddon - Better than you think!

[skyNET]

I will break down your response to smaller parts, for clarity. Also not for the sake of arguing, but for exchange of thought.

Buddhism is not religion it is phylosofy.

I can see where you coming from, and maybe it's not "religion" in the sense as there is no creator deity in buddhism; yet it has clearly religious practices and complex systems surounding those. Let's call it "religious phylosophy", just as some other notable far-eastern belief systems (Taoism, Confucianism); altough admittedly I have a lot of reading ahead of me, just to scratch the surface of them.

Religions are about controll of masses. IF they werent originaly they are now.

Unfortunately yes. That happens with anything, when politics (or rather seekers of power) start using and abusing things. It's a shame really because a lot of people are turned away from the true message and purpose of religion(s) for this reason.

Plus most of todays religions are the same one with different names each time, all lead back to ancient egypt and their incredibly advanced astrology. After many materials from Manly P. Hall and other mystics I agree that all the religions of today are metaphoric stories about planets and stars and their influence on earth and life on earth.

On it's own it's not a problem that religions are the "same" at the core, different places, different points in time require different ways of teaching and different teachers.

I personally would point a little further east from Egypt, namely modern-day Iraq and Iran as the source of "ancient knowledge" (Sumer/Babylon/Assyria/Persia all grown from city-states located in Mesopotamia). But that's just a personal opinion; seeing that written memories are dating back a couple hundred years (possibly a millenia) before anything in Egypt could be called reminiscent of a "state".

I'm in no position to argue with established writers, as I'm not an academic by a longshot; and probably they are right that most of ancient religious texts are not meant to taken literally, but what they say isn't anything more than a theory. The thing they seem to miss: by bagatellising religions (all of them as a whole), these mystics undermine the moral teachings what religions are meant to relay to those who are in need of a 'moral compass'.

And lastly food for tought:

...

It seems that we are thinking along parallel (if not the same) lines, it's just our 'compass' that is different :) Just to grab a pair of questions: Do you need church? - There are people who need institutionalised guidance; it's our damn fault that (some?) churches grabbed worldly power. Do you need book? - There are people who need a book to guide them, and in fact, you and me also needed something to read to begin the path we're walking.

I'm eager to hijack this thread even more, as I'm really enjoying our conversation :)

[gloriatorios]

I like the video but all you have proven is that the game had selected a point on the track to pull the other car towards you.

If it really was a thought that it knew then it would have placed the car in a position to ram or come at your car head on.

So all you have done is understand that once you make a derision in the game, It picks a opponent and at least gives you something to aim at. But its good you pointed this out.

But its not artificial more like a smart bug in game.

[Breakin'Benny]

I like the video but all you have proven is that the game had selected a point on the track to pull the other car towards you.

If it really was a thought that it knew then it would have placed the car in a position to ram or come at your car head on.

So all you have done is understand that once you make a derision in the game, It picks a opponent and at least gives you something to aim at. But its good you pointed this out.

But its not artificial more like a smart bug in game.

He [AmazingArends/Cybernet here]'s not coming back on here, we've all proven to him that he's just an embarassing doofus who doesn't even try to prove his stupid theories. Heck, he's still going on on YouTube, apparently afraid and very nervous now that we all know he's just making things up.

...Should we close the thread or keep it?

[Dodo Bizar]

Lengthy post... the real point is in the bottom, go there, I babble too much.

Completely missed this discussion in it's time. Got to this via the linked videos topic somewhere else on this board. Was hoping to see another vid as nice as the Shrodingers AI vid. Did not understand the point of the AmazingArend vid though... then I read this hehe.

But now if you go to AA's youtube channel (yes sorry... it is... intrigueing somehow the way he takes on this discussion, so I am still interested in a weird way). You see even today/yesterday he uploaded like his 20st vid on this subject. Not that I botter to watch it. Sorry Timothy (your real name if I am correct), but can't spend my time reading all of this topic and trying to understand your so-maniest 'proof' of this AI behavior, just skimming along this. However... to everyone else, do click on his homepage link. It at leasts gives me a hint about his own profession I guess and it ain't programmer or anything scientific. So that gives me a hint about your programming baggage as to say... I guess not much, correct me if I am wrong, please do.

I will try not to mingle myself in the 'factual' discussions about what is going on. I program myself (non-public software, so don't ask) and as an experienced gamer understand fully the point Trent and others are making. How Trent (and most others) explain it, is the way I perceive the games inner workings as well. AmazingArend's AI 'proofs' to me are mere statistical occurences which you might expect to happen given the set out 'AI' mechanics and enough time.

I personnaly call any game sytem AI btw, from the most simple 'shoot when player is in sight' to the most complicated decision making trees. Taking this discussion to it's limit I might state that even our human brains are decision making trees... albeit enormously complicated, with different inner workings as computers and with consiousness.

However the points Timothy tries to make are not programmed the way he tells us. I have gotten C2 just recently and am actually trying to spot the same stuff Timothy sees... I don't. I just see cars which either try to hit me or are making a run for themselfs... a status I simply change by hitting an opponent so they change from 'not bothering' to 'going for me', something clearly stated in the UI as somebody else already pointed out. I know the aggresive cars are often teleported in a spot driving towards me at speed, I make use of that and get many opponents wrecked head-on. Nothing more to it. Sometimes I am bored as hell because this one sucker keeps on racing or I cannot get my puny Eagle/Hawk in front of the big Bulldozer in time to give it some decent damage, nothing AI there going on, nothing that hints in the direction that the programmers try to occupy me with crashing cars. Even one time the last opponent kept teleporting away from me... probably a glitch which caused the car and it's current state to be illegal and therefore stayed teleporting?

So no AmazingArend, I as many others do not believe your AI proof. Now I ask myself why do you not try to absorb any of the information given here... I believe Toshiba even had to do something with the original coding or am I wrong? Yes Trent has used caps/red/underligned, but he makes an enormous effort first in trying to explain how this stuff works to you before he loses his temper... a men's patience is limited after all and you have really been stretching it in my humble bystanders opinion. A lot of good people wasted an enormous amount of energy here. Wish Nobby would swing in with just 1 or 2 clarifying lines to say or so. Why do you want your point to be true? And why is your focus on C2 so much? Aren't there any other games you can dig into and pry the senteniel being from it's underlying AI mechanics? In a crude way I would love to here your reasoning about those as well... yes for silly amusement though.

Ah well... that was a lenghty monologue. Now for the real point, hope I do not insult you (too much) with the following idea, but this discussion (and the whole reason I started typing this post) brought up the following: have an AmazingArend ped in your honour! One that shouts out how machines are taking over the world right before hit by a car. Lets even make it a bit smarter with a couple of extra car-dodging skills in it's own 'AI' to make it a nasty hard to get and overly clever ped. Happy new year btw to you all!

[Cybernettr]

Well, someone told me you guys were continuing to talk about me behind my back so I decided to step into the "lion's den," so to speak.

Dodo, the reason I am focused on C2 so much is that 1) I am not a huge gamer of other games, 2) I have long-time experience with Carmageddon as my favorite game, 3) the crude graphics (by todays standards) in C2 allow one to easily focus on what the AI is doing, 4) the sandbox nature of the game allows you (and the AI) to do almost anything in the game and 5) the simple rules of the game (waste, race or kill) make it easy to understand what is happening.

Even one time the last opponent kept teleporting away from me... probably a glitch which caused the car and it's current state to be illegal and therefore stayed teleporting?

That could be because the opponent's body was so badly bent that his drive wheels were no longer contacting the ground, so he was unable to move under his own power. I cover this in my video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngMNGCaVV4Q&list=UU4rvXVZbuzJ2vUxqZnFbCqQ

I have proven Trent wrong in so many things by now it's not even funny. I would encourage you to watch all of my videos. After all, how can anyone criticize if they don't even know what I have to say? That's like trying to ban a movie you haven't even watched.

Also, check out my video called "Best Mindreading Ever!!!" This is an even more awesome example of sentient AI than when the AI stopped the platform to allow me to win, as discussed earlier, and the best thing is, I got it all on video!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyZRc0c2Pys&list=UU4rvXVZbuzJ2vUxqZnFbCqQ

Also, I would remind you, you can leave comments on my videos as well.

As far as making an AmazingArends ped, I would be flattered by the honor! Imagine being reincarnated thousands of times on multiple systems!

[FatCat]

I think we could solve this thread in one way, we need Stainless to tell us what the AI in C2 does and why it's doing it =D

[Yfrid]

please read my last post in this discussion Cybernettr. But i'll emphasize this:

You didn't prove shit to Trent.

Actually, you're not proving ANYTHING. As i said already, people (as Trent) does lots of modding to the game by years. New cars, new tracks, new peds and lots of digging into the game .EXE to discover things (useful to add undocumented special effects to car and tracks as example).

Can you please realize your theories can't prove anything to anybody that has material proof of the game behaviour since they mess into its guts regularly by 17 YEARS?

Do you know if you don't setup custom tracks properly, by yourself, opponents will stay stand still at the starting grid or go straight into walls like retards? It's not like a thoughtless drag n'drop into the game and things work.

Even better, why don't you explain me how they didn't made your sensational discoveries in past years modding the game rather than guessing things by mere in-game action passive viewing?

[KakkaHousu]

I think we could solve this thread in one way, we need Stainless to tell us what the AI in C2 does and why it's doing it

Modders allready know how it works so no need to explain. Though maybe Cybernettr would believe if Stainless devs tells how it works.

Maybe we can say artificial intelligence is good in C2 without regard to matter of fact how it really works, because even if it doesn't do things he claims, it gives illusion of intelligence. That is purpose of AI, give illusion of fighting against living, thinking creature.

[FatCat]

Do you know if you don't setup custom tracks properly, by yourself, opponents will go straight into walls like retards?

Hehehe, Opponents in C:R will do the same thing too if you don't set them up in custom maps. :V

[KakkaHousu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPPtraKTpRY

Did you know, Carmageeddon A.I. can fall in love with player or atleast be enamored. Carmageddon 2, game about crash and killing involved such a feature first. How cute.

[Electric Blue]

This is the most entertaining thread I have ever read. It should be preserved for posterity.

Thanks AmazingArends for those intriguing videos (even if a bit too lenghty) and raising those controversial statements that evoked even more insightful responses. This discussion is both fascinating and amusing.

[skyNET]

With all seriousness, AmazingArends! Let me twist a bit on your theory, from another point of view! I'm interested what your answer will be!

Can we agree on: that the basis for a being to show signs of intelligence is the capability to remember past experiences (aka memory)?

> If yea > then what is your hypotheses, where does the A.I. of Carmageddon store it's "memories"?

> If nay > then how could it have foresight, how can it be innovative, as you stated in your first post?

I'm eagerly awaiting your answer!

[Trent]

People replying to a thread you made and revived a number of times is hardly "talking behind your back." You can hardly expect people to not reply just because you made an idiot out of yourself and don't you like what they're saying.

And, no, you never proved me wrong once. Your attempts have basically amounted to this:


This image is also relevant:

[Cybernettr]

Trent, as usual, your logic overwhelms me.

[skyNET]

Just fucking great. I'm trying to have a fucking conversation here... but I guess pictures are more flashy and in-yo-fes... and perceived differences are more important than ACTUAL DISCUSSION... can we concentrate on steering this thread back on track? Now that I'm interested in it :)

Can I get my answer now to the question featured on the top of this page, mr.nettr?

[Breakin'Benny]

Countering;

#1 I am not a huge gamer of other games

What other games do you have, including multiplayer games that feature Bots?

#2 I have long-time experience with Carmageddon as my favorite game

Then you should look at the other games as well, you can't focus a thing on one specific game.

#3 the crude graphics (by todays standards) in C2 allow one to easily focus on what the AI is doing

Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike are also dated games, much like Quake.

Even one time the last opponent kept teleporting away from me... probably a glitch which caused the car and it's current state to be illegal and therefore stayed teleporting?

That could be because the opponent's body was so badly bent that his drive wheels were no longer contacting the ground, so he was unable to move under his own power. I cover this in my video... *****

That argument is laughable, its bug is actually mentioned on the Carmageddon Wiki, where a car's collision goes inside the map geometry and has to slide across it until eventual wastage.

Thank you, adult diapers. I didn't even buy anything you said here, this isn't the pre-2000s The Stanley Parable where it's believed to be self-aware, it's an era where hard- and software were still limited. Go try TDR 2000 as well and we'll all agree that every argument of yours are invalid.

[Breakin'Benny]

Trent, as usual, your logic overwhelms me.

It's actually obvious you are a Scientologist, I'm way too nerdy about how AI programming works and you are trying to cram "personality" into it.

[Dodo Bizar]

I guess having this discussion proves one thing... the AI programmers did a fine job tuning everything with the small set of rules they actually used. They did enough to make people have this discussion 1.5 decade later on. Which to me, were I the programmer involved, would make me proud.

[Dodo Bizar]

Dodo, the reason I am focused on C2 so much is that 1) I am not a huge gamer of other games, 2) I have long-time experience with Carmageddon as my favorite game, 3) the crude graphics (by todays standards) in C2 allow one to easily focus on what the AI is doing, 4) the sandbox nature of the game allows you (and the AI) to do almost anything in the game and 5) the simple rules of the game (waste, race or kill) make it easy to understand what is happening.

Might I recommend an old-skool 16-bit game were recently one of the lead programmers actually confirmed there was a small bit of aggresion-level-memory going on? It is Road Rash (2) on the Genesis/Megadrive console from Sega, so old it ain't 3D. It's a bike-racing-beat-em-up game. The set of rules for the AI was even much simpler compared to C2 but it was fun. You basically had 15 opponents with all various initial levels of aggresion. Some would default attack you, others were friends and would let you pass unless you attacked them first. Based on your actions you would get pre/post visuals giving some info about the state of mind of some of the opponents. The nicest opponent was the girl named 'Natasha' and in especially the second game (Road Rash 2) her behaviour was set up so that normally she would let you pass, however in the last levels if she was made aggresive she was almost always driving full throttle which made her impossible to pass. Really fun for the time, early 90's. See if you can get your hands on a ROM and emulator I'd say.

Btw I did watch some more vids of you and nope, sorry, it proves nothing, I only see assumptions. But I don't want the argument, it is just lovely how you over analyse whatever is going on. Which I think is in itself a good thing, it means the game is entertaining and gives a good level of unpredictability... which is what we want as gamers isn't it?

[Electric Blue]

I'm sure that Reincarnation will offer even more unexpected, random behaviour from the AI. The "incidents" in the recent two Grand Theft Auto games are hilarious. It would be great if such spontaneous events would become a hallmark feature of the new Carmageddon.

I did watch some more vids of you and nope, sorry, it proves nothing, I only see assumptions. But I don't want the argument, it is just lovely how you over analyse whatever is going on. Which I think is in itself a good thing, it means the game is entertaining and gives a good level of unpredictability... which is what we want as gamers isn't it?

That's nicely put.

[Cybernettr]

Btw I did watch some more vids of you and nope, sorry, it proves nothing, I only see assumptions.

Okay, then let me ask you this: what would it take to convince you that there is true AI in the game, (within the bounds of the capabilities of the game engine, of course)? Obviously, one of the avatars is not going to climb out of their car and start having a conversation with you, because that is not within the capabilities of the game engine. Maybe we just have a different definition of what constitutes "intelligence," or proof of same. Remember, I am not saying that the AI is as intelligent as a real person, just that it shows SOME intelligence.

[skyNET]

Okay, then let me ask you this: what would it take to convince you that there is true AI in the game, (within the bounds of the capabilities of the game engine, of course)? Obviously, one of the avatars is not going to climb out of their car and start having a conversation with you, because that is not within the capabilities of the game engine. Maybe we just have a different definition of what constitutes "intelligence," or proof of same. Remember, I am not saying that the AI is as intelligent as a real person, just that it shows SOME intelligence.

@ Mr.Cybernettr.

Are you ignoring me deliberately? I hope you're not cherrypicking who you answer to, like mr.D - that is so fucking low.

I'm interested what your answer will be!

Can we agree on: that the basis for a being to show signs of intelligence is the capability to remember past experiences (aka memory)?

> If yea > then what is your hypotheses, where does the A.I. of Carmageddon store it's "memories"?

> If nay > then how could it have foresight, how can it be innovative, as you stated in your first post?

(If it's hazy or not clear, let me hint it for you: there lies the key to prove/disprove your claims, so it's good to give it a thought!)

[Electric Blue]

Btw I did watch some more vids of you and nope, sorry, it proves nothing, I only see assumptions.

Okay, then let me ask you this: what would it take to convince you that there is true AI in the game, (within the bounds of the capabilities of the game engine, of course)? Obviously, one of the avatars is not going to climb out of their car and start having a conversation with you, because that is not within the capabilities of the game engine. Maybe we just have a different definition of what constitutes "intelligence," or proof of same. Remember, I am not saying that the AI is as intelligent as a real person, just that it shows SOME intelligence.

Most of us won't be convinced with the observational type of evidence that you offer, but IMO it is nice that you create and tanaciously defend the legend of "the ghost inside the machine" within Carmageddon. Its AI is another reason that makes the game a timeless classic.

[Cybernettr]

Are you ignoring me deliberately? I hope you're not cherrypicking who you answer to, like mr.D - that is so fucking low.

I'm interested what your answer will be!

Can we agree on: that the basis for a being to show signs of intelligence is the capability to remember past experiences (aka memory)?

> If yea > then what is your hypotheses, where does the A.I. of Carmageddon store it's "memories"?

> If nay > then how could it have foresight, how can it be innovative, as you stated in your first post?

(If it's hazy or not clear, let me hint it for you: there lies the key to prove/disprove your claims, so it's good to give it a thought!)]

Look, I don't mind answering questions (even if I sometimes have to be asked more than once) but I don't like it when someone DEMANDS an answer.

I don't know if you watched my recent "fence jumping" video, but I kind of touch on this issue at the very end of that video.

I don't know if memory is a requirement of intelligence (otherwise, Alzheimer's patients could not be said to have any intelligence) but as I mentioned in my video, I do think the AI may, in addition to using a neural net based on the actions of hundreds of players (or hundreds of hours of gameplay) made while the game was in development, keep a sort of database of the current player's recent actions. So if the player knows where a certain power up is on the map, for example, and goes there often, then the Ai will know it.

That could account in part for the AI's uncanny ability to predict the player's actions.

[Cybernettr]

Most of us won't be convinced with the observational type of evidence that you offer

That's what I thought.

[Electric Blue]

Most of us won't be convinced with the observational type of evidence that you offer

That's what I thought.

I actually like your videos, except that they're too long. May I request that your future videos be more brief?

[Cybernettr]

I have been trying to make my recent ones shorter, but I broke that pattern with the "Fence Jumping" video...

[Electric Blue]

I have been trying to make my recent ones shorter, but I broke that pattern with the "Fence Jumping" video...

You might want to analyze Reincarnation when a new update comes out (which I suppose isn't far from now). I'm very interested in the new AI. It is going to be even more impressive. Such show would be very cool.

In my opinion, you would gain more acceptance if you didn't focus on explicitly incredible statements - instead of claiming that the AI has autonomic features, show into what kind of behaviour it manages to fool us and give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's just a matter of phrasing.

[skyNET]

Look, I don't mind answering questions (even if I sometimes have to be asked more than once) but I don't like it when someone DEMANDS an answer.

I don't know if you watched my recent "fence jumping" video, but I kind of touch on this issue at the very end of that video.

I don't know if memory is a requirement of intelligence (otherwise, Alzheimer's patients could not be said to have any intelligence) but as I mentioned in my video, I do think the AI may, in addition to using a neural net based on the actions of hundreds of players (or hundreds of hours of gameplay) made while the game was in development, keep a sort of database of the current player's recent actions. So if the player knows where a certain power up is on the map, for example, and goes there often, then the Ai will know it.

That could account in part for the AI's uncanny ability to predict the player's actions.

I did not "demand" the answer, I merely repeated the question more than once, because I don't like it when someone IGNORES to answer. That makes us even I guess.

However, I feel you circumvented the answer.
1. Alzheimer's Disease: I expected this to be brought up. If you look up the course of the disease you will find that it degrades the mind slowly. First the semantic memory, then the short-term memory, and lastly the long term memory gets "wiped" gradually, at which point it's arguable that the patient is more than a lump of flesh (as inhumane it sounds). So people with AD are not immediately "non-intelligent" because they retain some of their memory until the very end - when paraphasia turns into aphasia; basic motoric reflexes falter which ultimately leads to muscle mass deteroriation rendering the patients unable to feed / care for themselves. Usually death comes in form of other infections, not brain damage caused by AD itself.

In short it's not an argument against the premise - that the ability to remember past experiences is the basis of intelligence (among other notions irrelevant to our discussion yet).
2. The "neural net": Is not the answer for "where" it's more like "how", but it's my fault, I should have been more precise. By "where" I meant what physical medium it uses for memory storage - obviously has to be the HDD/SSD, I admit that I just wanted to hear it from you.

It's important because storing data (memories) requires bits 'n' bytes. Those take up space. So if an A.I. "learns" new things to "remember" it has to use disk space. If it uses disk space, it can be measured and located, and your claims are proven. Of course to make such measurement possible, one needs to make sure that nothing else could use space (antivirus, downloads, saves, screen and video recording, etc.); and has to find a way of locating the new 'memories' - a simple date search should do the trick.

Unless you claim that this A.I. is so advanced, that it escaped it's physical constraints (which would be an amazing transcendental feat), or "conceals" it's workings by unknown means (which would make it even more advanced, and would raise even more questions).

Addendum

Foresight, by definition requires memory {as in remembrance}. Preamble: one can not guess events probably to happen {foresight}; if one has no ability to recall past experiences, whereof predictions can be made using deduction.

Innovativeness, by definition requires memory {as in remembrance}. Preamble: one can not find new methods to solve a problem {innovation}; if one has no ability to recall past experiences, whereof innovations can be made using deduction.

These are two of the "five traits of human intelligence" (which Carmageddon's A.I. displays according to you) a definition made by you, arguably fabricated for the purposes to strenghten your claim; nonetheless it will be your hypotheses' ultimate downfall.

Post scriptum

Your logical fallacy is: the texas sharpshooter.

Drop a message if you think I'm wrong; or when you located the "memory files" of this "neural net". I'm intrigued.

- edited proportioning -

[CzechDeath]

Seeing this topic still living I would like to point out the major problem related to AI in general.

You see there is an assumption in scientific community(and therefore in public of western culture) that brain generates consciousness and that consciousness = inteligence

Everywhere I look, listening to majority of educated people in this topic (AI, robotics, neurologists, biologists) they are repeting over and over that mind is generated by brain and so when we make computer as complex as human brain, we will get consciousness. Yet nobody knows exactly how this is done in that brain. Exact process however is what we as humanity need to understand to even try to make AI. So far we failed to pinpoint which neurons are responsible for what. We know what is the hardware made of, what part relates to what function of body, but how is all this conscious, that is debate that humans are having since they realised the are conscious. No answare yet...

So there is very little chance that Carmageddon2 or any other game, or even software specificaly made to try to simulate consciousness are by any means conscious...

So there... We need to define what AI are we talking about. Becuse to me it seems that we are talking about Carmageddon 2 being conscious. Which is utter nonsense... If we are not counting in that whole universe therefore everything in it may be made of consciousness by consciousness therefore everything is conscious, but that is different topic =D Oh the dualism...

Consciousness may be the very fabric of our universe. We could be all simulated. This could be all dream of inconceivable mind, all just illusion at such fundamental level that we have almost no chance to ever find out. Every thing can be disproved, everything exept the fact that we experience, what ever "We" means ... And we have the guts to assume that some lump of proteins and minerals is even real ? =D We assume to know what intelligence is? what mind and or consciousness is? We want to create one? - So how ridiculous is to assume that we have already created one? in game? virtually by accsident =D

[Yfrid]

It's important because storing data (memories) requires bits 'n' bytes. Those take up space. So if an A.I. "learns" new things to "remember" it has to use disk space. If it uses disk space, it can be measured and located, and your claims are proven.

oh i may also add that if not stored on local hdd, IA's "learning memory" should be found at least into RAM. Something that can be analyzed by software with tools.

stuff like cheat engine can also manipulate its content by hexedits on the fly but i honestly have no knowledge about this.

@CzechDeath

so far i've got the impression that Cybernettr has a very abstract and fictionalized vision of computation. I'm pretty sure he ignores that existing CPUs, GPUs, RAM has very finite and specific architectures and instructions to interact with each other by mere electronic design. Awareness can't exist by accident or whatever since there is physically no way for software to do anything that hardware doesn't features. period.

stuff like terminator's Skynet could exist only by plot convenience.

[CzechDeath]

It's important because storing data (memories) requires bits 'n' bytes. Those take up space. So if an A.I. "learns" new things to "remember" it has to use disk space. If it uses disk space, it can be measured and located, and your claims are proven.

oh i may also add that if not stored on local hdd, IA's "learning memory" should be found at least into RAM. Something that can be analyzed by software with tools.

stuff like cheat engine can also manipulate its content by hexedits on the fly but i honestly have no knowledge about this.

@CzechDeath

so far i've got the impression that Cybernettr has a very abstract and fictionalized vision of computation. I'm pretty sure he ignores that existing CPUs, GPUs, RAM has very finite and specific architectures and instructions to interact with each other by mere electronic design. Awareness can't exist by accident or whatever since there is physically no way for software to do anything that hardware doesn't features. period.

stuff like terminator's Skynet could exist only by plot convenience.

Yea ... I find this topic to be so huge and complex that I don't eve know where to begin...

Maybe we just don't understand what Cybemettr means, maybe he just talks about his feelings about the "AI" in C2 not actual facts....

[skyNET]

oh i may also add that if not stored on local hdd, IA's "learning memory" should be found at least into RAM. Something that can be analyzed by software with tools.

I ruled out RAM as storage since it's unreliable to serve as "memory bank", because if no electrical current flows through it, all stored data gets wiped. It could serve as short-term memory at maximum (if that's what you meant by learning memory, feel free to ignore). But nonetheless, even if RAM is used for such purposes, as you said, it's pretty sure there are tools which can copy all stored data from RAM to HDD, or tools that "fool" the pc that HDD is actually RAM (potential killer), or tools that "open" the RAM in a viewer.

And to bring it further in the fashion of an absolutely mind-blowing sci-fi (this seems the way to go around these parts of the forum), a truly intelligent agent would not risk the loss of acquired knowledge, assuming it's indeed conscious and is aware of it's own capabilities/limitations.

[Cybernettr]

In my opinion, you would gain more acceptance if you didn't focus on explicitly incredible statements - instead of claiming that the AI has autonomic features, show into what kind of behaviour it manages to fool us

Maybe it's my background and my part-time occupation, but I have made a study of what fools people and what doesn't. I am someone who is interested in illusions, and I don't think the AI in Carmageddon is one, So obviously I wouldn't want to say that it is just "fooling" people. In fact, I helped get the Wikipedia entry on artificial intelligence and videogames changed from saying that it is all just an illusion, because I don't think it is.

Also, people have asked me why I focus on only this one game. Well, obviously, if you establish that there is real AI in just a single videogame, then from then on people can't say that AI in ALL video games is just an "illusion."

[Cybernettr]

2. The "neural net": Is not the answer for "where" it's more like "how", but it's my fault, I should have been more precise. By "where" I meant what physical medium it uses for memory storage - obviously has to be the HDD/SSD, I admit that I just wanted to hear it from you.

It's important because storing data (memories) requires bits 'n' bytes. Those take up space. So if an A.I. "learns" new things to "remember" it has to use disk space. If it uses disk space, it can be measured and located, and your claims are proven. Of course to make such measurement possible, one needs to make sure that nothing else could use space (antivirus, downloads, saves, screen and video recording, etc.); and has to find a way of locating the new 'memories' - a simple date search should do the trick.

Unless you claim that this A.I. is so advanced, that it escaped it's physical constraints (which would be an amazing transcendental feat), or "conceals" it's workings by unknown means (which would make it even more advanced, and would raise even more questions).

Addendum

Foresight, by definition requires memory {as in remembrance}. Preamble: one can not guess events probably to happen {foresight}; if one has no ability to recall past experiences, whereof predictions can be made using deduction.

Innovativeness, by definition requires memory {as in remembrance}. Preamble: one can not find new methods to solve a problem {innovation}; if one has no ability to recall past experiences, whereof innovations can be made using deduction.

These are two of the "five traits of human intelligence" (which Carmageddon's A.I. displays according to you) a definition made by you, arguably fabricated for the purposes to strenghten your claim; nonetheless it will be your hypotheses' ultimate downfall.

Post scriptum

Your logical fallacy is: the texas sharpshooter.

Drop a message if you think I'm wrong; or when you located the "memory files" of this "neural net". I'm intrigued.

- edited proportioning -

Well, obviously, computers have memory, both "long" and "short" term. The long-term memory is what's stored on disk (or tape, in the old days) and the short-term memory is, of course, RAM. Computers have had such forms of memory since the beginning, it is directly analogous to human memory, and it is one of the things that makes computers "brain like" machines. In any event, I don't think that even if you did find the database files on disk of the players past actions that this would prove that the game is, in fact, intelligent.

It does make sense, however, that the game would be better at predicting the players actions if, for example, it knew that the player was aware of the location of a particular powerup on the map because the player had accessed it before, so if the player suddenly heads in that direction, that would be a clue as to what he was planning on doing.

In some of my videos, the AI clearly had to have at least some kind of short-term memory and an awareness of the current game conditions. Take the example where it paused the platform, blew up the car that was resting on top of it, and then resumed the platform's descent in order to allow me to win. It obviously had to have at least a short-term "memory" of where the opponent was and other aspects of the game's conditions.