Quote:
Originally Posted by Mourningfall
|
It's going to be difficult to respond to this because I think there are some irreconcilable differences in opinions here, but I'm going to try anyway because I want to clarify some misconceptions
1) Research is iterative, and results like this do not mean that this is ready to replace human beings (spoiler alert, it will never be ready to replace human beings). What is promising here is that with this
preliminary research shows strong results. And yes, these are strong results.
2) The paper clearly indicated that the method was actually better at predicting
higher difficulty charts, which is at least in part a consequence of higher volume of steps.
3) "It's never gonna happen, machines lack imagination dude"
This really pisses me off, tbh, because it's so closed-minded. It's a common human arrogance that "humans are the only creative things out there." Can you define what creativity is? What imagination is? I strongly doubt that you can conjure a definition of either of those terms that
is exclusively human-centric, because cognitive scientists and AI researchers have tried for years to classify, operationally, why humans are in monopoly of either of these things. This isn't really central to your argument, but I want to make clear that this particular statement is not as "obvious" or "trivial" as you are making it seem.
4) "But I'll take your word that 50%'s "pretty damn good." you've played these games enough to know that fucking up 1 in every 2 notes is no big deal."
The "50%" here is
the ability of the system predict one particular step artist's charts for one particular song. I can see where you're coming from here, the ability to emulate the timing of one particular human being 50% of the time is not great
for your purposes right now, but it is incredibly short-sighted of you to say that "
it's never gonna happen", which is an expression you used multiple times. Refer to point 1.
5) @everyone who asked, I realize there are different stepping patterns between different games. What I'm asking is whether there is a particular reason why it is not possible to teach somebody how to step for keyboard games.
Presumably, there are a set of "rules" and "heuristics" for good tracks. People talk about good and bad tracks all the time. People here have some understanding of "when" and "where" to place steps.
People can learn how to make good tracks. Ergo, there is a logic, or a set of logics, that human authors rely on when making tracks. This is what the system is learning. This is not different from DDR/ITG. It makes no fundamental difference that keyboard is more complex. (Until we get results for such an experiment, that is.)
It's like training for a 10k vs training for a marathon. The training process is not fundamentally different. The latter is harder and requires more resources and time, but you are still running.
It is not the case that this is the difference between training for a marathon and training for a hot-dog eating contest.
Anyway, sorry for the emotional response, but I feel an obligation to set the record straight about things
-- an AI PhD student