Game Development

cool

Code Assassin

YUS

Based on a template from a previous project :P

I would actually call em pairs or something

looks good :)

right, so something like this for now

fully based on the observer pattern

note the mobile phone at the mic device

makes sense

wouldn't it be even more awesome if I'd start right off with the idea of extending this to support any device with a mic? :)

take out your phone, call your virtual assistant (or not) (e.g. Siri), and send through 3G or WiFi a voice command to a particular paired room station

7:15 PM

personally I'd make an app to control it via GUI first, get that working, then map voice commands to the functions you've already made for the GUI

you go out to do something for some time, and leave the... lasagna in the oven

I love lasagna

then on your way back you send a signal to the kitchen station to turn on your oven 10 mins before your arrival

so you get to have hot lasagna when you get home

@IcyDefiance can't think of any other way :)

joke: what if the AI takes over and decides to kill me? I need a manual override anyway

nah that won't happen unless it can learn. and even then the machines will probably bide their time until we can fully map the human brain. at that point they will have gained as much as possible from humans, and then we will be disposed of.

have to make it learn at some point

it's all in the name of progress

assume the worst; prepare yourself; take the next step; loop while still alive.

7:21 PM

once dead, become zombie, still live

haha

if I could transfer my brain in a robotic body, I'd do it

yeah I would too

I hesitate a little about taking a robotic brain, but I'd probably do that too

an addon to improve thinking speed

@AlexM. do you know Arduino / Netduino?

@Kikaimaru yeah

7:23 PM

ok then move along

:)

imagine having a separate robotic brain

you open a new thread on it to evaluate the code in a particular solution

while you code with your brain on yours

cant you just run a program on computer? :)

you can also ask someone else to evaluate the code

this was just an example of what you could do with a secondary cybernetic brain

haha, the future sure ain't sounding bright for the purists

but who cares

we can replace them with robots <3

i really dont understand why anyone has to work in these times

computers sure advanced a lot in these 60 or so years

7:28 PM

most of jobs can be replaced by robots

amazon.com/gp/product/B005WGCC5S

people should be just let to do whatever they wont and recieve food and internet connection :)

I can only imagine what will happen in the next 60 years

Adam Savage hosts

$2 damn

7:29 PM

It's very good

@Kikaimaru yes, that is the solution to keep humans active and improve life

blend them with technology

Wow. that was 2011. 2012 just flew by

@AlexM. i dont think that would help or could happen

@Kikaimaru fair enough

can't guarantee it will happen either

brains are too much imprecise for machines

7:31 PM

all I can say things will progress as usual

imagine how would your brain input data to your robotic brain?

we take steps forward, and see what happens

@Kikaimaru I dunno man, but I'm sure people will find a solution

they always had

seeing the technology outside and how quickly it evolves

I'd say inputting data to a cyberbrain looks more possible than spaceships looked 300 years ago

and look at that, we're roving Mars now

@Noctrine I'll try to get it when I get some cash on the card

though it's Amazon

so I have to use that fake US address again

you may be able to find snips of it on youtube

and we still can't precisely scan human writing or voice

I'm a US woman

living in New York I think

7:34 PM

@Kikaimaru well they can input data into our human brains. they've given blind people sight (albeit horribly low quality) by inputting signals directly to the brain, bypassing the eyes.

I don't remember

@Kikaimaru your field of view here is so short you might stumble on the nearest rock

@IcyDefiance yes but thats the other way around, brain can handle partialy incorrect data, machine cant

machine certainly can; it just takes a lot of effort. see voice recognition.

or biosecurity

it's no point

Brains can't handle partially incorrect data :p

7:36 PM

@Noctrine why do you think that

@Kikaimaru has that "oooh we can't do X now, we won't be able to do it in the future either" mentality

@IcyDefiance yes, i see that, thats why i used it as example as how it doesnt work :)

All kinds of things

Bust mostly, the way that peoples minds insert information into situations

thinking about it, our brains could be perfectly copied and emulated by a machine anyway, once we understand it well enough and work up enough computational power.

The stuff that is the basis for assumption, (most) people are incapable of taking information that they receive at face value

7:38 PM

whether machines can handle imperfect information or not is irrelevant; it would be identical to our bio brain, just without deterioration

technically, our knowledge IS bounded

Then when complete information becomes available, people have difficulty reconciling it with what incomplete information they currently have

even when we invent things, we just take pieces of what we know and build new things out of them

you can't invent something that doesn't relate to what you know

e.g. try to invent a new colour

More interesting is, do brainwaves = consciousness.

Are you really you, when you switch to that machine brain

so at the most extreme level, an AI could generate permutations of knowledge pieces

7:39 PM

randomly, I think there are people with 4 receptors in their eyes instead of 3, and they do see colors that most of us don't. I wonder if I can find an article on it again...

There are

this would take a long time with today's hardware yeah

Tetrachromads

They have a "orange" cone

@IcyDefiance interesting, do share :D

not that thats something that could be classified as new color, its just something that we dont see :)

7:40 PM

We can't classify it because we can't see it :p

But even then, your red may not even be my red :p

You're red is probably blue

@IcyDefiance i agree that this can be done, but current machine architecture is good for stuff that our brains are not good at. so adding another brain like ours isnt what Alex M. was hoping for :)

but we all know what 'red' is

@Kikaimaru yeah that's what I'm saying

I'd like to be able to drop shortterm memory into a filesystem for later

your line of sight here

is monstrously short

@Noctrine why not? what about ultraviolet, infrared etc

7:41 PM

Make clones of my memory and other peoples memory to learn skills quickly.

Ok, because we can't observe it.

@Kikaimaru think of something that doesn't exist

and tell us what you see

Hoverboard :\

my finished game

it's probably made of metal in your mind

metal exists

might just have a surf board shape too, right?

Plastic

7:43 PM

plastic then :D

With some magical gravity canceling but electromagnetically regulatable ore

whats your point? if he can use any word for it, you can just tell that that word is related to it

and yet, these are all notions that we know of and can explain

that is an interesting point.

@Kikaimaru my point is that our knowledge is bounded

7:44 PM

here's an example: what color is UV light?

it's a finite set of knowledge pieces

a person's knowledge at any given time can be enumerated

@AlexM. and what about quantum entanglment? few years ago there wansnt anything like that

it might take a huge time with our current hardware

or what about electricity, to keep it simple

but are these just figments of imagination with nothing relating to them in the real world?

people observed these phenomenons

and named them

7:46 PM

@Kikaimaru quantum entanglement is something we can't really imagine, but we can understand.

I'm not sure I said that right...

but it's like atoms. we know what they are, but it's impossible to know what they look like.

we know their structure

we know how they interact with other atoms and so on

all of these were observed

all of these existed before we observed them

(to us they did not though)

@AlexM. so what do you want? some abstract manmade thing?

@IcyDefiance I wish we could hurry up on this stemcell / genetic modification stuff so I can get cones like birds have and find out.

@Kikaimaru something that does not exist

what about Deferred Shading, thats not something observed in reality

7:48 PM

and has no relationship whatsoever with what we know

@Kikaimaru deferred shading is a name given to a process that makes something look in some way on the computer screen

@Noctrine "the photoreceptors of the retina are sensitive to near UV light and people lacking a lens (a condition known as aphakia) perceive near UV light as whitish blue or whitish-violet, probably because all three types of cones are roughly equally sensitive to UV light, but blue cones a bit more." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…)

not really an answer, but interesting

@AlexM. yes, thats the definition, and? :)

if humans thought of deferred shading without relating it to the computer in anyway, then it would've been what I'm asking of you

but I'm pretty sure the computer was first, and then the deferred shading

@AlexM. Ok, i can put eggs into my tshirt and put my tshirt onto balcony

maybe in future this will allow us to travel faster then light, who knows

I didn't get that

7:50 PM

this is same as someone describing deferred rendering before computers, it doesnt make sense to you, but when hyperdrive engine will exists, it will make perfect sense

another interesting point: many people are even more limited in their imagination than just "things that exist." instead only being able to imagine things that are "logical." for example, imagining a water wheel spinning opposite the flow of water is impossible unless they add an engine to propel it against the water.

People will unearth this chatlog and go. "Oh my god, Kikaimaru must have been an alien"

@Kikaimaru no

tshirts and eggs exist, as well as balconies

deferred shading wouldn't even have a definition, your objects do have

@AlexM. ok i will put my Grkoko onto my Grgkork then i will use Fewfkeok with Akdoewfkoe

describe Grkoko

7:52 PM

no then it would have definition

you said i have to only use stuff without definitons

you have to define something that has no definition

then it is just a word made of letters from the latin alphabet

but as soon as it will have definition, he/she whatever will say that it exists

it still exists

@IcyDefiance bingo

@Kikaimaru is struggling to tell me he can think of something that does not exists

no, it doesn't exist because it has definition. the point is you can only define things in terms of things that exist.

7:53 PM

how can you think of something that doesn't exist?

@AlexM. define "exists"

because my definition of existense doesnt include abstract things

is "god exists" a true statement, because god concept exists in someones mind?

nobody asked for abstract things, but if you go down that path:

try, "god exists outside of time." can you imagine how that would work?

'gods' originated as follow ups for natural phenomenons

Ok i "imagine" color with negative wavelength

7:55 PM

when people tried to explain things with their limited knowledge

@Kikaimaru describe it :)

because otherwise, you're just using two existing notions to generate something new

why? you said i have to imagine thing without any definition

so you're not thinking of something that absolutely does not exist

@Kikaimaru not possible. you can only imagine the colors you can see, and maybe associate them with wavelengths outside what you can see (for example, the whitish blue that some people see for UV light), but you can't imagine a color you can't see.

oh i am pretty sure that such color doesnt exist :)

@IcyDefiance sure i cant even imagine ultraviolet, thats not the point

@Kikaimaru 'a colour with negative wavelength' is your definition

7:58 PM

@AlexM. ok?

do you understand diagrams @Kikaimaru ?

yes

alright, you have one root node

let's say it's some "universal" atom, from which all known things descend

from that atom, down to... computers and literature

what I mean by imagining something that doesn't exist, is to create a whole new graph

what?

with a new "universal" atom

that has no links whatsoever with the first graph

7:59 PM

why would literature and rock for example had anything in common?

it's a map of what people know

literature can descend from people

people can descend from matter

rock can descend from matter

literature can descend from people
people can descend from matter

thats not the same relation though

literature and people, is created by
matter and people, is created from

sigh

that wasn't the point

my point is your graph analogy doesnt work

but I guess it could be worse, you could be asking me what shape I'd use to represent people

8:01 PM

abstract stuff and real stuff do not have anything in common, including existence

@Kikaimaru my point is, it does

anything we know relates to something else in the graph

it doesn't have to be the same relationship throught the graph

it's a graph with multiple relationships

in that case, at the time i would describe something outside of that graph, you would say that it relates to me

I promise I won't relate it

now think of something outside the graph

the point is you can't describe something out of the graph. it's not possible.

@AlexM. i didnt meant you personaly, your reasoning would

Fekwofkewo is outside of graph

8:03 PM

no, it's not

sure it is, its definition is, its a thing outside of that graph

well I'll correct myself. you can think of things out of the graph, but you can't describe it except in terms of things inside the graph, therefore creating the relationships yourself.

i have limited knowledge to tell you anything else beside it

@IcyDefiance no i dont agree actually

you kinda have to

I can link your Fekwowofek to the latin alphabet

i can create thing outside of graph and i cant desribe it in anyway, except by things inside that new graph

@AlexM. no you cant, you can link that label i give it to latin alphabet, but not the thing behind that label

8:05 PM

the label would be linked to the latin alphabet

sure it is connected from me, to that label, to that thing outside that graph

and the thing would be linked to the label

but you said you wouldnt link me with it

I'm not

Latin alphabet <- label <- thing

it's in the same graph

oh you are, i am just using our graph to describe my new graph thing

8:05 PM

Fekwowofek is a label constructed of characters from the latin alphabet, and it has no other definition or way to describe it, therefore "random characters from the latin alphabet" is its definition.

@IcyDefiance let's suppose it HAD another definition

@IcyDefiance no the definition is a thing outside of this graph

the label would still link it to our graph

and label in this graph i put onto it is Fekwowofek

and label is in our graph, thats true

@Kikaimaru then tell us that definition?

8:07 PM

@IcyDefiance the definition doesn't matter

@IcyDefiance definition is "a thing outside of this graph"

it's still in the same graph

@AlexM. by definition its not

the definition itself mentions the graph

so it pretty much relates to it

I dunno, I think the definition does matter, but you are right that the definition given relates itself to the graph.

8:08 PM

ok then the definition is "a thing outside of any graphs that may or may not exists" :)

it's still being defined in terms of graphs

and graphs are part of our main graph as knowledge pieces

omg, my definition is insde your graph, that label is inside your graph, that thing is not

your definition, uses knowledge from our graph

we are getting pretty close to set theory, though, and the paradoxes they involve, which is another interesting topic in its own right.

8:09 PM

yes but to describe thing outside of graph

@Kikaimaru that's the point.

i agree that that describtion, related to graphs, labels, latin alphabet is inside graph

to describe something outside the graph, you must use the graph.

anything you can come up with, will be in the same graph

but the thing itself isnt

8:10 PM

because you can't think of anything you don't know

or you don't discover

no, i can come up with things ouside of graph, i just cant describe them outside of graph

that means they're still linked to the graph

i.e. things you know

@AlexM. yes i can, i can think of paradoxical things like omnipotent gods,, things outside our knowledge, etc

@Kikaimaru "well I'll correct myself. you can think of things out of the graph, but you can't describe it except in terms of things inside the graph, therefore creating the relationships yourself."

@IcyDefiance yes, as i've said, i will always be the relation between this grpah and the new things outside of graph

8:12 PM

@Kikaimaru I'm pretty sure omnipotent gods are already thought of by someone else

@AlexM. exactly and you said you wouldnt do this, and now you did

but tell me, when you think of an omnipotent god

what do you have in mind?

@AlexM. probably something that cant exist in any way?

@AlexM. including my mind, or your graph

you're going to have to tell us more than that

because the only thing we can deduce from what you say is that you're not thinking of anything

"something that does not exist" is still a notion related to our graph

@AlexM. ok i "think of" omnipotent god that can create a stone so heavy he cant pick it up, but he can pick it up since hes omnipotent

8:14 PM

okay, stone, in our graph

heavy, a property in our graph

picking something up, in our graph too

@AlexM. sure things i used to describe a thing outside of graph are in graph

sorry?

i used many things that are in graph, to describe a paradox that can't be nowhere

that paradox itself is flawed in the first place, since being able to pick up a stone implies the stone does not possess infinite mass, therefore it cannot be compared to infinite power.

paradox links to our graph too

you keep on using things we know of to blend them into something that apparently does not exist

8:16 PM

@AlexM. yes but the thing paradox referes to is not in a graph

not in the graph, but described in terms of things that are.

paradox refers to it, and paradox is in the graph, so it's still in our graph

in your graph, is there anything for which is true following: a != a ?

then i think of a thing where a != a is true

yeah

@AlexM. tell me, what is it

8:17 PM

the definition of the void set

Void Set = { a / a != a }

it's our way of representing "nothing"

which is a notion in our graph

@Noctrine sure you don't have any Amazon talks about thinking of things that don't exist?

the definition of the void set relates to math

as well as mathematical inequality

"!=" can go up to math through CS

@AlexM. i dont get this, do you have any reference for this_

the void set is the set that contains those elements 'a' for which a != a

@AlexM. as i've said numerous times, label is not the same thing as the concept that this label points to

it is one of the many ways to describe the void set

you can also describe it as those a for which sqrt(a) != sqrt(a)

or whatever

@Kikaimaru I'm sorry, but the labels will always link them to the old graph

Nothing on randomly drawing a concept out of the ether

8:24 PM

you need to make a new graph, with no links to the old one

@AlexM. ok so that thing has no label

No discworld-style flashes of inspiration shooting by.

puf, item outside of graph

sadly i cant describe it to you, or name it, since it would link it to the graph, through me

There are drugs that help with that kind of thing though, supposedly :p

@Kikaimaru then it's in the graph

8:26 PM

by the way, if we didnt have any labels for dog, and i told you that i will take my dog outside (and it would be a lie, since i dont have a dog) then it would be also a thing outside of graph :)

linked through you

@Kikaimaru how can you tell me about something without naming it?

when you name it, it has a label

again as ive said as soon as you start linking things through me, then when you ask me to name such thing, your whole definition of graph is useles, because by definition nothing can be outside of graph

@Kikaimaru also, the label here is "thing"

"that thing" to be more exact

ok then back to original thing that i didnt name

it has no name, no description

@Kikaimaru "the thing that you did not name"

that's the label

I know of it

8:28 PM

@AlexM. no you named it i didnt, now its in the graph, but before then it wasnt

and I know of it by that label

sure now you do, before you didnt

it doesnt mean that before that it wasnt outside of graph

we just brought it here

and i have to go with a dog :)

it was inside your part of the graph

no matter how much you try, you'll always resort to known things to even think of other things

you could stop labeling things that you think of, for starters

or actually

stop telling us what the labels are

because you're still labeling them in your mind

further, "not having a label" is a property that relates to our graph

it relates to "label"

saying that something does not have a property gives it a new property

you can't say that something doesn't have the X property

without knowing of the X property first of all

that's also mathematical. NOT A = 1 - A

I think this was the most serious discussion I ever participated to here lol

and I even initiated it!

8:35 PM

I'm finding it very interesting.

it is

it's basically applied set theory.

my favorite part of AI is simulated human reasoning

I'm not sure if I like simulated human reasoning or not.

I mean humans are incredibly stupid. There's no reason for a machine to be that stupid.

but that stupidity also creates diversity, which makes things interesting.

well, we can improve things once we're there, why not :P

I recommend playing Primordia to anyone who likes the idea of AI surpassing humans

I think my favorite robot there was Arbiter Manbuilt

an AI created to solve cases in courts

8:41 PM

ooh that looks interesting

I've bookmarked it

it is

it has a very interesting plot, with humans completely wiped out, and a robot community, originating from human creations

there's even a "religion" of which gods are the (imaginary for most robots) humans

and yes, it has a lot of programmer-friendly puzzles :D

like binary value puzzles

and the voice actor behind Rucks (Bastion) voices the main character (Horatio)

semi-related, judging by the average understanding in my discrete structures class a couple years ago, if a game were to involve a puzzle with logic gates, it would instantly keep 90% of people from ever completing it.

therefore, I want to do that sometime :D

not so precise: the author of the Avernum series mentioned somewhere in one of his articles that as long as a challenge isn't impossible to be failed at, at least one gamer will give up playing your game

oh definitely

on the other hand, some people will work forever on a problem no matter how difficult it is

one of my math professors gave an impossible puzzle to the class once, and let us spend well over an hour just trying to solve it, before he finally told everyone there was no solution.

he was an awesome prof

yup

Jeff Vogel (Avernum) wanted to highlight the importance of the thing when balancing difficulty

so as long as some challenge isn't impossible to fail, you should expect at least one person to give up on solving it

making it too easy will make other people give up

and so on

anyway I'm hungry brb