I don't think making humans comfortable is the goal with respect to AI. The goal is to actually solve a problem. Performance is second. Human comfort is a distant third or beyond.
When AI can reliably solve a problem without significant negative consequenses from time to time, it's a win. How humans feel about the method is effectively irrelevant.
The near miss behavior is very much like overfitting. Mario is simple and deterministic enough that it doesn’t matter, but think about a scenario like a self driving car. A calculated near miss turns into a crash if the other car’s driver is just a little slower or their tires a little slicker than anticipated.
You seem to talk about AI-controlled-NPCs in games, while GP starts from the article context about AI-controlled-PCs (player characters) and proceeds to generalize about using AI to solve problems outside games.
Comments
I don't think making humans comfortable is the goal with respect to AI. The goal is to actually solve a problem. Performance is second. Human comfort is a distant third or beyond.
When AI can reliably solve a problem without significant negative consequenses from time to time, it's a win. How humans feel about the method is effectively irrelevant.
The near miss behavior is very much like overfitting. Mario is simple and deterministic enough that it doesn’t matter, but think about a scenario like a self driving car. A calculated near miss turns into a crash if the other car’s driver is just a little slower or their tires a little slicker than anticipated.
According to whom?
AI in games, has historically been all about human comfort/enjoyment. Extremely good AI that seems "unnatural" to humans is usually not the goal.
You seem to talk about AI-controlled-NPCs in games, while GP starts from the article context about AI-controlled-PCs (player characters) and proceeds to generalize about using AI to solve problems outside games.
I think the point is that different people have different goals for "AI"