jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur ([personal profile] jducoeur) wrote2006-12-31 11:25 am
Entry tags:

Artificial Intelligence problems

The hell with chess. When they come up with a computer that can cast a 27-person LARP, *then* I'll be impressed...
tpau: (Default)

[personal profile] tpau 2006-12-31 11:49 pm (UTC)(link)
talk to nat. he has some software that does it
tpau: (Default)

[personal profile] tpau 2007-01-01 12:40 am (UTC)(link)
iam not surehwo nat did whathe did but i woudl immagine it is possible to fill outthe questonaire form teh perspective of each character, and then ahve software match that with each player's answers...

[identity profile] fairdice.livejournal.com 2007-01-01 05:11 pm (UTC)(link)
From the algorithmic point of view — which is to say, paying attention to some mathematical abstraction, and ignoring how close it is to the real problem — I think you're okay. Edmonds's "blossom" algorithm (Canad. J. Math 1965) is a polynomial-time algoritm for solving the minimal-weight perfect-matching problem: given a score for how much "cognitive dissonance" each person would have playing each character (which could just be a distance between the high-dimensional points corresponding to their questionnaire responses, but more involved is ok too), the algorithm will produce the matching with the minimal total dissonance.

One glaring shortcoming for your real problem is that it can't take inter-assignment relationships into account: "Player A will be much happier playing role X if B plays Y than if C plays Y" is right out. (Mathematically, that would mean your objective function isn't linear in the matching.) I don't know how much you do that sort of thing.

[identity profile] dagonell.livejournal.com 2007-01-01 12:31 am (UTC)(link)
Actually, I wish I lived closer so I could further complicate your life by being one of your players! AI in chess didn't make the papers when they could first do it, it made the papers when they could do it as well as a human! :D :D :D
-- Dagonell

[identity profile] querldox.livejournal.com 2007-01-01 04:36 am (UTC)(link)
The classic turning point on this was when AI critic Hubert Dreyfuss, who'd written a paper titled "Why Computers Can't Play Chess", visited MIT and played their MacHackIV program (years prior to Apple monopolizing the "Mac" prefix for computer things). And lost badly.

MIT folk promptly wrote an underground, never officially published, tech report titled "Why Dreyfuss Can't Play Chess".