MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385570299 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-srw.17

The Turing Quest: Can Transformers Make Good NPCs?

2023· article· en· W4385570299 on OpenAlexafffund
Qi Gao, Ali Emami

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScripting languageComputer scienceSoftware deploymentVariety (cybernetics)Pipeline (software)Human–computer interactionTuringTransformerArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageSoftware engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the potential of using large pre-trained language models to generate non-playable character (NPC) scripts in video games.We introduce a novel pipeline that automatically constructs believable NPC scripts for various game genres and specifications using Transformer-based models.Moreover, we develop a self-diagnosis method, inspired by prior research, that is tailored to essential NPC characteristics such as coherence, believability, and variety in dialogue.To evaluate our approach, we propose a new benchmark, The Turing Quest, which demonstrates that our pipeline, when applied to GPT-3, generates NPC scripts across diverse game genres and contexts that can successfully deceive judges into believing they were written by humans.Our findings hold significant implications for the gaming industry and its global community, as the current reliance on manually-curated scripts is resource-intensive and can limit the immersiveness and enjoyment of players.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207