游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

开发者谈电子游戏AI的未来发展趋势

发布时间:2012-07-25 17:13:20 Tags:,,,

电子游戏的画面从像素的粗糙简陋发展到如照片般逼真可信。但我们对角色外观的期待总是比对行为更加如容易成真。下一代技术也许可以渲染眼睛的光泽闪耀,或者柔软的皮肤下的漫反射,但如此逼真的人物是否能走出房间的门而不是一头撞上去呢?

AI_top(from edge-online)

AI_top(from edge-online)

我们不是在打赌。从历史上看,我们对可信的AI的最基本的希望也不曾实现:例如,AI队友应该完美地避开陷阱而不是一次又一次地掉进去;找掩蔽物时不应该找那些上面穿了许多弹孔的。在真正的战场上,真正的人不会与子弹相拼,而是用语言。

在近来的少数游戏中,《天际》、《黑色洛城》、《质量效应》和《暴雨》比较重视人类交互作用和移情作用。但是,这几款游戏的对话树、场景和录音角色有限、很难与游戏世界的真实度相匹配。闪闪发光的双眸和精细的皮肤毛孔只会将人物的可信标准越拔越高:我们想要成百上千个独一无二的角色,他们不会总是重复相同的反应;与他们的关系会体现之前发生的交互作用;与他们的对话是富有趣味的,他们可以说出大量带有相同的细微差别、动态和完整的话。这会不会成为真正的次世代游戏呢?

Emily Short是一名游戏设计师,在心理交互式小说游戏领域颇有名气。她认为:“这些事没有体现在甚至对话最多的主流游戏的模式当中。你看BioWare的大型RPG,游戏中有场景,你可以遇上按固定方式记录好的或预先组合好的对话树。对话树的表现并不丰富:你只能挑一个选择罢了。”

对话树不应该是这样的。Short本人曾与《模拟人生3》前程序员Richard Evans合作过,组建了一个实验游戏工作室LittleTextPeople,旨在研究动态的、社交性在上丰富的AI。该工作室的第一款游《Cotillion》被《第二人生》开发商Linden Labs所看好,于是兼并了该工作室。这款游戏模拟的是简·奥斯汀的小说(游戏邦注:Cotillion是Austen时代的一种舞蹈),是一出由玩家幕后操作的风尚喜剧。复杂的角色之间有互动,同时追求各自的目的。游戏通过文本叙述了一连串错综复杂的事件,根据玩家的操作,各段描述和对话都会即时产生。

Short指出:“我们的游戏还没有自由到可让你输入任何文字,但毕竟比对话树流畅。Richard制作的模拟器有可能让角色表现出具有特殊气质的癖好,所以与某个角色说话时,该角色会发哼哼声或喜欢谈论自己,甚至掌握对话的主动权,出现这种情况是可能的。”

在GDC 2012大会上,Short列举了一些例子:“有这么一个情形,在大半夜时,角色们的马车出了意外,车夫将他们丢在路边,因为他知道这附近闹鬼,所以他自己吓得跑路了。Elizabeth刚刚从坏掉的马车中钻出来,她没有看到车夫逃跑了。所以当前的情况让她疑惑:‘车夫跑哪去了?’Lucy知道答案,所以她说:‘那个,可能车夫觉得这个地段晦气,所以他逃走了。’她特有的措辞是根据角色定制的。她的个性应该有点儿羞怯,所以她有自己的说话方式。之后是医生的标准化回答:‘其实,我敢说是因为他弄坏了我们的马车,怕我们发火,所以吓跑了。’这个回答可能是为了幽默。Lucy可以决定:‘我觉得这是幽默吗?’她觉得是,所以她笑了。这个模式让我们有机会把角色的性格塑造得非常细致,人们根据自己的性格,在对话的风格中表现个人喜好。”

AI_heads(from edge-online)AI_heads(from edge-online)

(Ben Sunshine-Hill (左) 供职于Havok,从事AI编程,Mike Treanor是博士生,也是《Prom Week》的设计师之一。)

根据Short的话,玩《Cotillion》更像是在表演或即兴创作,而不是玩游戏。作为一款以文本为基础的游戏,《Cotillion》与目前的主流游戏相去甚远。部分是因为预算少(游戏邦注:Short认为:文本不花钱),但还有设计方面的因素:“动作表现出来的其细微差别的程度、角色的内在情绪和冲突动机的可能性,要形象化地表现出来,实在是太困难了。”

Short和Evans不是这一领域的唯一探索者,位于圣克鲁兹的加利福尼亚大学已经建立了一间名为Expressive Intelligence Studio (EIS)的工作室,其研究范围也涵盖了类似的范围。2005年的《Façade》是一款接似于上社交模拟的游戏,玩家在游戏中与一对脾气暴躁的夫妻对话,度过了一个紧张的晚上。这是一个野心勃勃的游戏项目,其潜力是巨大的,但在执行的自然度方面不太稳定。

Short对此的评论是:“《Façade》试图一石多鸟。它要解决三个困难的问题:如何处理自然语言的输入;如何表现角色的情绪;如何首先管理好基于AI的剧情,然后确保交互活动引出越来越紧张的氛围、危机和解决办法?这三个问题都太难解决了。在我们明白三者放在一起时会有多强大以前,我们要为解决各个问题分别付出更多努力。”

尽管如此,《Façade》的基础是建立在工作室后来的研究项目之上的。最新的一个项目《Prom Week》,是一款社交模拟游戏,玩家在一所美国学校中应对各种情绪失控和令人担忧的关系。它被描述为“AI的蜡笔物理学”(游戏邦注:《蜡笔物理学》即《Crayon Physics》,是一款物理益智游戏),这款游戏将整个社交关系的网络呈现在玩家面前。

Mike Treanor是博士生,也是游戏的设计师之一。他解释道:“《Prom Week》有一个非常复杂的模式来代表社交。各种活动不是随意的,它们组成了社交互动理论,玩《Prom Week》就是突出并试图理解那个理论。每一个互动都是为了改变与其他人共处的世界的状态:我只是为了让你更喜欢我一点才奉承你的。这就是《Prom Week》的交互活动——你选择一种社交交流特点,制作出另一种。”

这种社交的极端就是不择手段的政治家。为了让校园Linux达人成为毕业舞会之王,他的众多目标之一,玩家必须对评审团进行暗箱操作。为此,你要与舞会的选拔委员会的委员长搞好关系,而拉关系又要求玩家威吓共同的对手。尽管各个任务和目标都与特定的角色有关,但玩家可以选择屏幕上的任何角色并指挥他们。点击一个角色,然后另一个角色给玩家一系列可能的反应,这取决于这两个角色之间目前的关系。

Treanor指出:“对话不是专属于某个角色的——任何角色都可以说,只要情况合适的话。但在对话的台词当中,角色可以插入能反映自己的个性和社交关系背景的东西。到目前为止,共有6000句台词,这看起来就像是18个角色都有独一无二的内容可说。”

在大制作的产品中,这些技术可能有什么用途呢?Treanor认为:“《Prom Week》是一个大社交模拟。但只有我们解释的最微小的部分——为什么角色彼此喜欢以及他们的想法可以轻易地整合进游戏中,像《神鬼寓言》或《孤岛惊魂》一样,所以角色记得过去发生的事,这在任何给定的时候都会影响他们对玩家的反应。通常来说,角色心中不存在‘历史’这个概念。但对所有想制作带有复杂AI的游戏的人来说,《Prom Week》现在就是一个基准点。”

Short说道:“我们需要一些令人印象深刻的演示片,然后我们可以说,‘看吧,如果你的角色记性够好,能记得自己身上发生了什么事,或根据自己的情绪活动,那么你就能做出这样的东西了。’”

但,她很清楚,并非所有游戏都能因为有这样的社交复杂性而变得丰富多采:“当在某个场合中,某个NPC就是要让玩家打死的,搞出这么复杂的互动毫无道理。但我可能假定有这么一款游戏,玩家与某个角色反复战斗过,而这个角色富有个性,粗鲁冲动。对我而言,在这种情况下用情绪模型并非不可想象的,但在大多数时候,我看不到这种事发生——对于玩家具有的交互作用的程度而言,这是一种错误的尺度。”

相反地,Short和Treanor都热衷于将AI用作游戏的重头戏,借此研究全新的游戏类型。正如Short所解释的:“我真的对人类互动的不同领域感兴趣,想看看是否可以把它制成游戏和交互剧情的材料。如果我们有一个关于谈话、协商或欺骗他人的游戏,那会怎么样呢?”

“这种体验可以是理解系统本身。我想将人类情况的哪方面做成游戏?然后你拿一块白板,在上面模拟一些爱情或其他理论。你做了一个原型,发现行不通,只好返回去修改理论和游戏设计。”Treanor认为这对独立场景可能比对主流场景更有吸引力,但即使在现存类型的范围中,他认为运用简单的技术也可以制作更可信的NPC。

Treanor还透露,其他EIS的学生正在开发直接运用于现有游戏类型的AI。“Anne Sullivan正在研究次世代游戏,这个研究着眼于世界和玩家所做的事,模拟角色、他们的欲望和他们在世界中做的事。它创造了一个你的所做所为能对其产生影响的世界,让你感觉到角色不只是一具装满可以解读说明的躯壳。”该工作室以后要开发的其他游戏,可以按照玩家的技能和行为产生关卡,或甚至整个“瓦力欧制造”风格的规则设置,即基于简单的名词-动词-名词的输入。最后,Treanor还提到,在《星际争霸》中,有个复杂的对手AI名为EISbot。“大多数RTS的AI执行的是手写脚本,但这有一个深层的模式,即专家型玩家的真实想法和玩《星际争霸》方式,利用机器学习能力分析韩国的专家型选手的游戏轨迹。”

Emily Short(from edge-online)

Emily Short(from edge-online)

(LittleTextPeople工作室的Emily Short是新型交互式小说游戏的先驱。)

显然,投入AI开发的资源可以带来丰厚的回报,无论是挖掘全新的游戏类型还是给玩家提供更好的谈话对象。AI还可以塑造游戏的体验,正如Valve公司的《求生之路》的总监所做的,对玩家的行为和能力作出反应,以突出游戏剧情。所以为什么《Cotillion》和《Prom Week》这少数两款游戏要努力研究AI?

显然他们需要大量工作的支持,但在将游戏的图像做到极致方面,AAA工作室野心勃勃,愿意投入预算和人才。然而,在主流游戏中,AI在一定程度上受到了轻视——角色往往不能绕过岩石找到出路,更别说进行一段可信的对话。所以为什么AI的潜力经常被忽略?Treanor认为:“AI是无形的,你理解它的唯一方式就是通过交互作用。而对于图像,你可以立刻看到资金、技术研究、处理器时间的走向。”

Short同意道:“对于图像这类东西,可以比较容易地达到我们所认同的进步标准。但我所感兴趣的AI,它会带来什么,它能产生什么类型的游戏,不总是显而易见的。这是一个崭新的领域,总是有风险的。”

在GDC 2012的一次演讲中,Ben Sunshine-Hill这名供职于Havok的AI程序师哀叹道,在全新的AI技术和更好的胡子渲染方法之间做一个选择,开发商往往把处理器周期放在后者上。他认为,在开发过程中,处理器时间与简单地调整AI相比,不是什么大问题:“如果你想为新图像技术制作原型,在游戏开发早期,就可以做,还能很快得到概念的样本。行得通,太棒了,你把它放进游戏中;行不通,好吧,也没什么损失。而对于有趣得多的AI技术,我们很想尝试,但必须在开发周期时尽早引入AI,然后投入大量资源——例如你可能必须记录1000条对话台词。直到开发后期,你才能看到结果好坏。”

另一个障碍是,如此复杂的动态系统的发声和可视化——这个问题是《Cotillion》和《Prom Week》可以避开,而主流游戏必须面对的。Treanor指出,让发生技术生成伴随可信的情绪的动态话语,仍然需要一段时间。“人们期待完整的对话。但如何让玩家在机制作用下进入AI系统,这也是一个问题。怎么做才能让玩家明白各种事件的发生?你的AI越复杂,设计问题的难度就越大,在你把这种AI投入AAA游戏中以前,这些问题必须解决。”

尽管如此,正如 Sunshine-Hill所说的:“敢于在这种AI上冒险的作品往往会得到嘉奖。”他引用《模拟人生》的“害怕目标导向型活动计划模式”:“我听说他们做得相当好。像《Prom Week》这类游戏的崛起可以向其他游戏大作展现它们的巨大潜力。大工作室会看到这些小独立作品在做什么,也会注意到存在现成的AI技术已经放在一起等着他们用。但在那一天到来以前,我认为某些AI技术还不可能实现,必须等到工作室愿意用100强的内容开发团队一起努力。”

如果Bethesda、BioWare和Quantic Dream认真对待在游戏中创造可信的人际剧情,那么这就是他们必须花钱的地方。渲染出一把浓密的胡子可能容易招来媒体关注,但逼真的角色不只是长着精细的淋巴结。角色行为是一个新境界,也许是次世代游戏的获胜条件,只有AI可以克服的挑战。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

The future of videogame AI

by Edge Staff

Videogames have journeyed from pixel sprites to near-photorealism, but our expectations for how characters should look have been satisfied more easily than our desires for how they should behave. The next generation of technology may be able to render the way light glistens on the meniscus of an eye, or scatters beneath soft skin, but will the owner of said skin be able to find her way out of a room without hitting herself with the door?

We’re not placing bets yet. Historically, even our most basic hopes for convincing AI have been left unfulfilled: squadmates should ideally try to avoid spike traps rather than bumble into them repeatedly, for instance, or take cover on the side of scenery that isn’t being riddled with gunfire. The real battleground for realistic behaviour will not be fought with bullets, however, but words.

Skyrim, LA Noire, Mass Effect and Heavy Rain are among the handful of recent games that place emphasis on the complexity of human interaction and the importance of empathy, but whose restrictive dialogue trees, cutscenes and canned character barks struggle to match the expectations set by the fidelity of their worlds. The glittering eyes and sharply defined pores of the future will only raise the bar further: we’ll want unique characters in their hundreds who don’t repeat responses, whose relationships are a palimpsest of previous interactions, whose conversation is peppered with idiosyncrasy, and who can respond to a constellation of possible prompts with the same nuance, dynamism and integrity as a real person. Wouldn’t that be truly next gen?

“These sorts of things aren’t represented in the model for even the most dialogue-heavy mainstream games,” says Emily Short, a game designer renowned for psychologically complex interactive fiction. “You look at BioWare’s large-scale RPGs, games with cutscenes, and either you’ve got a situation where something has been pre-recorded to be played through one way, or prefabricated dialogue trees. There’s not an expressiveness to the way the dialogue tree mechanic works: you can only pick a choice.”

This need not be so. Short herself has worked with former Sims 3 programmer Richard Evans to set up experimental game studio LittleTextPeople, established to investigate the potential of dynamic, richly social AI. Its first game, Cotillion, has proved promising enough for Second Life developer Linden Labs to acquire the company. The game’s a sort of Jane Austen novel simulator (‘cotillion’ is a dance from the era), a comedy of manners in which you pull the strings. Complex characters interact with each other while pursuing their own motivations, and the game narrates the subsequent entanglements via text, with paragraphs of description and dialogue generated in realtime, and subject to your manipulation.

“Our project isn’t so freeform that you can type in anything, but it’s more fluid [than dialogue trees],” says Short. “The simulator Richard created has the potential to have people exhibit finely grained eccentricities, so it’s possible to write characters who grunt when spoken to, or like to talk about themselves and take the conversational initiative more than they should.”

During a talk at GDC 2012, Short outlined some examples: “There’s a scene where the characters have been in a carriage accident in the middle of the night, and they’ve been left at the roadside by the driver of the carriage, who knows this neighbourhood is haunted. So he’s freaked out and left. Elizabeth’s just got out of the wreck, but she didn’t see the driver leave. So the world model has given her the question: ‘Where did the driver go?’ Lucy knows the answer to this question, so she says, ‘Well, the driver thinks this area has a bad reputation, so he fled.’ Her particular phrasing of that is customised. Her character is supposed to be a little bit diffident, so she has her own way of saying that. Then there’s a standardised response. The doctor says, ‘Actually, I bet he left because he was scared of us being mad that he wrecked our carriage.’ And that’s tagged as potentially meant to be humorous. And Lucy has the opportunity to decide: ‘Do I find that humorous or not?’ She does, so she laughs. This model gives us the opportunity to have very fine-grained characterisation, and to have characterisation where people express personal eccentricities through the style and the shape of their conversation.”

Ben Sunshine-Hill (left) works for Havok programming AI, while Mike Treanor is a PhD student, and one of the designers of Prom Week

By Short’s own admission, Cotillion is more like acting or improvisation than playing a game. And being text-based, it remains at a distance from the current mainstream vogue. Part of that is simply budgetary (“Text costs nothing,” says Short), but it is also by design: “The level of nuance to the performance of an action, the interiority of the character’s emotions, and the possibility of having conflicting motives were prohibitively difficult to represent visually.”

Short and Evans aren’t the only explorers in this field, though – the University Of California in Santa Cruz has set up the Expressive Intelligence Studio (EIS) to cover similar ground. It made waves with 2005’s Fa?ade, a somewhat wonky social simulation in which you navigate a tense evening engagement with a fractious couple. It was an ambitious project whose potential was apparent, but faltered in the naturalism of its execution.

“Fa?ade is trying to do so many things at once,” comments Short. “It deals with three hard problems: how you process natural language input, how you represent character emotions, and then how you do AI-based drama management on top of that, and make sure the interaction leads to some sort of increasing tension, crisis and resolution. Each of those three things is so difficult, [and] there’s so much more to be done on them individually before we get a clear idea of how powerful they will be when put together.”

Nonetheless, Fa?ade’s groundwork has been built upon by the studio’s subsequent research projects, and the latest, Prom Week, is a social engineering game in which you navigate the flaring tempers and fraught relationships of an American school. It’s been described as “the Crayon Physics of AI”, a game in which the entire web of social interrelations is laid before the player.

“Prom Week has a very sophisticated model of what it means to be social,” explains Mike Treanor, a PhD student, and one of the designers behind the game. “Actions aren’t arbitrary, they make up a theory of social interaction, and to play Prom Week is to poke at that theory and try to understand it. Every interaction is taken in order to change the world state with someone else: I just complimented you to make you like me a little more. And that is the interaction in Prom Week – you choose which social exchanges characters make with one another.”

It’s Machiavellian in the extreme. In order to get the school Linux geek to become prom king, one of his many objectives, you have to rig the jury. You do this by building a friendship with the head of the prom royalty selection committee, which in turn requires you to bully a mutual enemy. And although each mission and its goals are related to a specific character, you can select any character onscreen and command them. Clicking on one character and then another gives you a set of possible interactions depending on the current relationship between the pair.

“Dialogue isn’t authored for one character to say – any character could say [the words] if the situation’s appropriate,” says Treanor. “But within the lines of dialogue themselves, there are points where characters insert the things that reflect who they are and their personal social context. So for 6,000 lines of dialogue, you get what feels like 18 characters with unique things to say.”

What sort of applications might these techniques have in big-budget productions? “Prom Week is a heavy social simulation,” says Treanor. “But just the tiniest fraction of the things we account for – why characters like each other and what they think – could easily be incorporated into games like Fable or Far Cry, so that characters remember things that happened in the past, and that influences the choices they make with you at any given moment. There’s no notion of history in characters’ minds usually. But Prom Week is now a data point for anyone who wants to make a game with complicated AI.”

“We need a few impressive demonstration pieces out there,” says Short. “Then we can say, ‘Look, here’s the kind of thing you can do if you have characters who have a better memory of what’s happened to them, or behave in a way affected by their emotions.’”

She’s clear, however, that not every game would be enriched by having such social complexity: “There’s no point in having that in a situation where the NPCs are there predominantly to be shot at,” she says. “But I could imagine a hypothetical game in which you had repeated battles with one character who was well-characterised, and had a robustly modelled emotional space that affected how he behaved. So it’s not inconceivable to me to use an emotional model in that context, but for the most part I don’t see that kind of thing happening – it’s the wrong kind of granularity for the level of interaction that players are having.”

Instead, both Short and Treanor are keen to use AI as a game’s centrepiece, and thus explore entirely new genres. As Short explains: “I’m really interested in a different domain of human interaction, and seeing if that can be made into material for games and interactive stories. What if we have a game that’s about conversation, negotiation or deceiving somebody?”

“The experience can be about understanding the system itself,” says Treanor. “What aspect of the human condition do I want to make a game about? And then you just start on a whiteboard, modelling some theory of love or whatever. You do a prototype, realise it doesn’t work, and go back and tweak the theory a little bit and tweak the game design.” He’s ready to admit that this will probably be more attractive to the indie scene than the mainstream, but even within the confines of existing genres he believes simple techniques can create much more believability in NPCs.

Treanor also reveals that other students at EIS are developing AI with direct applications for existing genres. “There’s research being done by Anne Sullivan on quest generation,” he says. “It looks at the world and what the player has done, simulating characters and their desires and what they’re doing in the world. It creates a world in which what you do actually matters, and gives you the sense that characters aren’t just empty husks filled with notes you can read.” Other games to come from the studio procedurally generate levels tailored to the player’s skill and actions, or even entire WarioWare-style rule sets based on simple noun-verb-noun inputs. Finally, Treanor tells us about a sophisticated StarCraft opponent AI called EISbot. “Most RTS AIs play through scripts that are hand authored, but this has a deep model of how expert players actually think about and play StarCraft, and uses machine learning to analyse expert Korean players’ play-traces.”

LittleTextPeople’s Emily Short is a pioneer of new forms of interactive fiction.

Clearly, putting resources behind AI can offer huge boons, whether that’s excavating entirely new genres or just giving us better conversation partners. AI could also shape game experiences, as Valve’s Left 4 Dead director does, reacting to players’ behaviour and ability to heighten the drama. So why are Cotillion and Prom Week two of very few games to push at the boundaries of AI?

Evidently, the work underpinning them is extensive, but triple-A studios have the budget and talent, and no shortage of ambition when it comes to pushing games to their graphical limits. Yet somehow AI has been given relatively short shrift in the mainstream gaming space – characters often can’t even find their way around a rock, let alone through a believable conversation. So why is AI’s potential frequently ignored? “AI can be invisible,” says Treanor. “The only way you understand it is through interaction. With graphics, you immediately see where all that money, tech research and processor clock goes to.”

Short agrees: “With something like graphics, it’s fairly easy to work out the criteria of what we would all agree would be an improvement. But the kind of AI I’m interested in, it’s not always immediately obvious what it would lead to design-wise, and what sort of games that would produce. It’s a completely new field, and that’s risky.”

At a GDC 2012 lecture, Ben Sunshine-Hill, an AI programmer who works for Havok, lamented that given a choice between radical new AI techniques and a better way of rendering beards, developers tend to throw processor cycles at the latter. He tells us that processor time isn’t so much a problem as simply accommodating AI in the development process: “If you want to prototype a new graphics technique, you can do that very early on in the game’s development cycle [and] get a proof of concept up really quickly. If it works, great, you put it in the game, and if it doesn’t, well, you’ve not lost much. With a lot of the more interesting AI techniques we’d like to try out, you need to introduce them really early on in the development and then sink huge amounts of resources into the content necessary – like, 10,000 lines of dialogue may need to be recorded. And you don’t get a good idea of how well it’s working until pretty late in the process.”

Another bottleneck is the voicing and visualisation of such a complex dynamic system – issues that the text-based Cotillion and cartoons of Prom Week circumvent, but mainstream games would have to face. “People expect full dialogue,” says Treanor, pointing out that it will be some time before voice generation technology can render dynamic speech with credible emotion. “But there is also a problem with how you give players access to the AI system under the hood. How do you do that so players understand what knobs do what and why various things happen? The more complicated your AI gets, the more difficult those design questions get, and before you can throw it into a triple-A game they need to be answered.”

Nonetheless, as Sunshine-Hill points out to us, “Productions that take risks on AI like this are very frequently rewarded.” He cites Fear with its Goal-Oriented Action Planning model, or The Sims. “I hear they did pretty well for themselves. The rise of games like Prom Week have the ability to show larger productions just how much potential there is. The big studios will look at what these smaller indie productions are doing and notice that there are ready-to-use AI techniques that have been put together for them. But at the end of the day, I think there are certain AI techniques that won’t be possible until the studios are willing to put them together with 100-strong content development teams.”

If Bethesda, BioWare and Quantic Dream are serious about creating credible interpersonal drama in games, then this is where they need to be spending their money. A lushly rendered beard may make for an easy press shot, but believable characters are more than their finely drawn follicles. Behaviour is the new frontier, perhaps even the next generation’s win condition – and it’s a challenge that only AI can overcome.(source:edge-online)


上一篇:

下一篇: