Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3676328" data-attributes="member: 18280">I never meant to imply certainty.&nbsp; I, for one, believe that we have the whole AI thing ass-backwards.&nbsp; I think we should begin by trying to cultivate some form of &quot;emotional intelligence&quot; first, and then layer reasoning on top of that.&nbsp; However, if we could at some point create such a beast, and it didn't perform one of 1001 science fiction scenarios that see humans enslaved or eliminated <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />, then I could imagine that a game meeting both definitions could quite easily come about.&nbsp; If Roger Penrose is right about the nature of the mind, quantum computers (if we ever were able to make them!) might well be a step in the right direction.I could even imagine, in some Star-Trek-like future, that tabletop games would cease to be considered true RPGs simply because they don't allow you the breadth of role-assumption and choice that the holodeck does.As an aside, I found myself wondering yesterday how closely Second Life would adhere to my definition of a RPG, with the participants en masse acting like a DM surrogate.....And how I would feel about a fantasy game that modelled Second Life's ability to permanently change the enviroment and own the fruits of your labour.It might be true that the capacity for a computer RPG, even meeting my criteria, exists right now, even if it hasn't been fully exploited yet.&nbsp; I think that the first group to put together a cRPG-type game in which, when you slay the dragon, the dragon stays slain, and in which real commerce can occur, and which follows something along the lines of the Second Life business model, that group is going to make a lot of money indeed.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3676328, member: 18280"] I never meant to imply certainty. I, for one, believe that we have the whole AI thing ass-backwards. I think we should begin by trying to cultivate some form of "emotional intelligence" first, and then layer reasoning on top of that. However, if we could at some point create such a beast, and it didn't perform one of 1001 science fiction scenarios that see humans enslaved or eliminated :lol:, then I could imagine that a game meeting both definitions could quite easily come about. If Roger Penrose is right about the nature of the mind, quantum computers (if we ever were able to make them!) might well be a step in the right direction. I could even imagine, in some Star-Trek-like future, that tabletop games would cease to be considered true RPGs simply because they don't allow you the breadth of role-assumption and choice that the holodeck does. As an aside, I found myself wondering yesterday how closely Second Life would adhere to my definition of a RPG, with the participants en masse acting like a DM surrogate.....And how I would feel about a fantasy game that modelled Second Life's ability to permanently change the enviroment and own the fruits of your labour. It might be true that the capacity for a computer RPG, even meeting my criteria, exists right now, even if it hasn't been fully exploited yet. I think that the first group to put together a cRPG-type game in which, when you slay the dragon, the dragon stays slain, and in which real commerce can occur, and which follows something along the lines of the Second Life business model, that group is going to make a lot of money indeed. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification