Articles Available Online

The ability of computers to semantically understand the world – and the humans in it – is next to nonexistent Computers are wonderful at crunching numbers, transforming data, and analysing the organisation of bits and bytes in any forms, but only in so far as those bits and bytes are complete in themselves When it comes to a holistic understanding of how that data relates to the world in which they live, computers remain inept, unable even to understand the rudimentary meanings of the English language Try to ask Google a question, rather than just punching in words to search for, and watch how quickly Google will run into difficulties understanding what question you’re asking It might know ‘What year was Obama born?’, but ask ‘What term is Obama in?’ and it cannot tell you ‘His second’   In the near-term seeking such human-level understanding is a futile endeavour In a previous article for The White Review, ‘Choose Your Own Formalism’, I wrote about the formal aspects of human-computer interaction in games: the ways in which the limitations of computer representation of characters and ideas place constraints on what can be done within the confines of digital interactivity These delineate the difficulties computers have in simulating – and thus in representing – human character and interaction   There is little cause for optimism in that regard The ability to create interactive analogues for the complexities of human activity and emotion are limited by the need to specify them to the very finest detail Unless a computer can ‘think’ like a human, which it certainly can’t, the only way for human-like interaction to take place is if the designers manually code up every variation and possibility, an endless, exhausting, and uncommercial task But there is a much richer vein of development, one that promises far more surprises and advances in the year to come I am talking about interactive modalities, the means by which we exert control over our player character counterpart within a game There is one catch, however, which is that it is entirely sub-rational and non-cognitive   When I