Son of Godzilla
Banned
:lol @ that gif.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Milo Molyneux Thread of SHIT! SciFi Just Got Real
- Thread starter Larson Conway
- Start date
fatigues_gasolini
Member
chubigans said:
Does he mean the camera or Milo?
Man, some of you guys on here really dissapoint me and I think some really need to look into the mirror and ask themselves some serious questions about their mental state. I do not wish to insult anyone on Neogaf but those of you with peado ideas are sad sods...
This is a fully functional demo, a selection of people (including Miyamoto) got to see it behind closed doors at E3. The water section was free for anyone to enjoy, sometimes there is lag with Natal and our water segment, I do hope you all understand what software in development is.
This is a good article from someone who was allowed in behind the doors, and got to play the water bit: http://www.gamingtruth.com/2009/06/09/e3-2009-hands-on-milo/
I can understand you're sceptical and that's a good trait, but there's no need to be a nasty troll. We are really working hard on making this work, and I think "the dream" (or point that's made by Molyneux) about truly meeting a character is missed on Neogaf. For a bunch of hard-core gamers like us, that's a sad moment tbh.
Oh and I've got a stinking jet-lag so if any of my points above sound emotional, that's frakking why.
This is a fully functional demo, a selection of people (including Miyamoto) got to see it behind closed doors at E3. The water section was free for anyone to enjoy, sometimes there is lag with Natal and our water segment, I do hope you all understand what software in development is.
This is a good article from someone who was allowed in behind the doors, and got to play the water bit: http://www.gamingtruth.com/2009/06/09/e3-2009-hands-on-milo/
I can understand you're sceptical and that's a good trait, but there's no need to be a nasty troll. We are really working hard on making this work, and I think "the dream" (or point that's made by Molyneux) about truly meeting a character is missed on Neogaf. For a bunch of hard-core gamers like us, that's a sad moment tbh.
Oh and I've got a stinking jet-lag so if any of my points above sound emotional, that's frakking why.
SamVT said:
It's not just NeoGAF, it was all over E3, and we're not talking fanboys, but executives.
The Milo demo, especially, was packed with pedo feel. I would say that in 75-80% of the socializing and meetings I had at E3 the subject of Natal came up, and when it did, 100% of the time, the Milo demo was called creepy and pedo (although one Japanese guy I met with wondered aloud about a Natal-enabled Idolmaster. . .wait, that's not a positive thing. . .). That's not a NeoGAF thing, it's a human thing. The Natal project made a big splash because it was talked about a LOT, and that's good. The Milo demo? Yeah, talked about, but for all the wrong reasons. Don't blame that on NeoGAF, just fix it.
vireland said:
Yeah, it's not GAF, it's society as a whole. There is just no reason for an adult to befriend and spend a lot of time with a young boy if you're not his father, his parent's friend or a child predator. The fact that Milo looks as good as it does and is as interactive is actually a disservice in this respect. Had he looked like a Mii people wouldn't even have mentionned it, the realism makes it creepy.
Basically I don't see how this could work as long as Milo is a young human boy.
Mr. Durden
Banned
But I have no interest in talking to a fucking dog. I know there's a problem when it's smaller children, but least keep them human. Talking animals or fantasy characters just aren't as fun as actual human beings. Hell, I'd buy this if they kept it with humans, but talking animals or something like that immediately makes me not interested.aaaaa0 said:
Just wanted to say a couple of simple things:
(1) If the Milo demo was supposed to be a demonstration of superior (strong) AI or basically a synthetic simulation of a human character then it was most definitely fake. A sham.
(2) If the Milo demo was, as some people have positioned it, a demonstration of unique potential interaction with NPC characters in the future then it would by no means be any sort of significant scientific achievement.
Certainly there is nothing about position (2) that makes sense with the "science fiction has never even dreamed of this" position that Microsoft took. If we look at it as just marketing, then I think it is fair to call it out as being terribly dishonest and sensationalistic.
(Note: Also, some gaming press have reported Milo's reporting of their shirt color as being surprising -- creepy even. But different members from different media houses have reported the same thing (i.e. Milo pointing out their shirt color), and that's a great sign that it's scripted.)
I do think that the technology in general (taking facial expressions as data to affect the game, pseudo-physical interactions etc.) is possibly valuable to the future of gaming, but some of the opinions expressed are seriously a product of misrepresentation on Microsoft/Molyneux's part and ignorance/bowled-over effect on the part of gamers and the gaming press.
(1) If the Milo demo was supposed to be a demonstration of superior (strong) AI or basically a synthetic simulation of a human character then it was most definitely fake. A sham.
(2) If the Milo demo was, as some people have positioned it, a demonstration of unique potential interaction with NPC characters in the future then it would by no means be any sort of significant scientific achievement.
Certainly there is nothing about position (2) that makes sense with the "science fiction has never even dreamed of this" position that Microsoft took. If we look at it as just marketing, then I think it is fair to call it out as being terribly dishonest and sensationalistic.
(Note: Also, some gaming press have reported Milo's reporting of their shirt color as being surprising -- creepy even. But different members from different media houses have reported the same thing (i.e. Milo pointing out their shirt color), and that's a great sign that it's scripted.)
I do think that the technology in general (taking facial expressions as data to affect the game, pseudo-physical interactions etc.) is possibly valuable to the future of gaming, but some of the opinions expressed are seriously a product of misrepresentation on Microsoft/Molyneux's part and ignorance/bowled-over effect on the part of gamers and the gaming press.
gantz85 said:
Are you kidding? Being able to reliably extract facial expressions is something that I'd consider reasonably state of the art in machine vision/AI research -- but this is a not a research project, it is a consumer electronics product, with all the cost and robustness issues that need to be solved therein.
Of course Milo isn't a TRUE AI -- that is something like the holy grail of AI research and not something I'd expect could be pulled off by anyone let alone Peter Molyneaux -- but I think it is still a significant step above anything that's ever been seen in a game system or any other piece of consumer electronics available today.
Alx
Member
gantz85 said:
It all depends on how you define "significant", but analyzing people behaviour or emotions, based on their appearance or their voice, is a recent field of research. So there is a scientific background...
gantz85 said:
Well, of course it's scripted ! There is a script in the program that triggers the function "look at the colour of the shirt and make a comment about it", i thought it would be obvious for anybody...
Just like there is probably a script to detect someone handing a drawing, to trigger the activity "analyze picture", or for any other action in the game.
aaaaa0 said:
(1) There is no way you can declare project Milo as being able to "reliably extract" facial expressions.
(2) Sure, your position in your second paragraph could be right, but you're shifting the goal posts for Microsoft and Molyneux. That wasn't what they proclaimed. Why should you backpedal for them, unless you are Molyneux himself?
Alx said:
You think it would be obvious for anybody? No, it actually isn't. Some of the reactions from the gaming press like that of Eurogamer suggests that they don't even understand how the mechanics work, let alone what it implies. If they did they wouldn't be drooling and spouting hyperbole.
Mr. Durden said:
Yes, but it makes the illusion of intelligence a lot easier to create.
For example, the reason they choose a kid instead of an adult -- it is more expected that a kid ignores, doesn't understand what you say or changes the subject randomly when you ask about a complex topic. It's ok for a kid to ignore instructions, or do the wrong thing when asked.
If they replaced Milo with a 20 year old, then the bar for interaction would be that much higher and harder to meet for the software. It would be expected to understand a lot more, and be able to interact with a lot more depth.
Conversely, if they replaced the kid with a talking dog, the bar lowers. You'll excuse the software when it doesn't understand a question or follow an order correctly, because it's just a dog.
No one, no where (research or otherwise), has been able to make a real Turing AI yet, so all of the parameters for Milo must be carefully choosen to make the software's job easier and the illusion more likely to work.
The fact they chose a human character instead of a fantasy character is already really ambitious and risky, IMHO.
Alx
Member
gantz85 said:
What's the difference anyway ? Whether you know how it's done or not, it's the same result, you're facing a software with a new level of interaction... even if it's scripted, having a virtual character say "Hi Alx, nice shirt !" is still surprising, because it's unexpected.
Anyway Molyneux has been honest with what was inside the box, he always insist on the fact that it's only a lot of tricks that build the illusion of an emotional link.
http://www.edge-online.com/features/interview-peter-molyneux-milo-and-kate
MightyHedgehog
Member
Was going to add to the discussion, but aaaaa0 pretty much said everything I would have (but in a smart person way). Cool, cool.
vireland said:
My point still stands, there's been some very good points made in this topic as to why it's a child, those who think peado immediatly need to take a good look at themselves tbh. There's a HUGE difference between inspiring a ten year old or flashing your nob at them.
hc2 said:
after E3 i showed my girlfriend and a few other people the clip. nobody said anything pedo at all. one person asked what would happen if you cursed, like would it recognize it and feel uneasy or just ignore it. other than that they said it looked interesting. anecdotal evidence for sure, but it makes me wonder if i hang around different people than (apparently) most of GAF.
also, there's someone here who looks like a one man wrecking crew, built with the sole purpose of taking Milo down. and considering i have nothing else to do for the next 2 hours i hope it continues. because it's crazy funny.