Quote from SamH :

With 30 years younger, maybe ?

On the question of global warming and its consequences, individual speculations are of little relevance. Just stick to the facts.
Factually, the scientific consensus on global warming has been unanimous for 15 years.100% of scientific publications reach the same conclusions. There is no study of real scientific significance which contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective.

(for the sceptics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Global warming is proven.
Its anthropogenic cause is demonstrated.
The direct consequences of global warming are observable and measurable.
The nature and speed of current warming have nothing in common with previous climate variations and natural cycles.
The global surface temperature has increased more rapidly since 1970 than in any other 50-year period in the last 2000 years (at least).
CO2 and methane concentrations have increased more between 1750 and today than for 800 000 years before.
Ice melt has increased by 65% in the last 30 years
Sea levels have risen by more than 20 cm on average since the beginning of the 20th century, and their temperature is higher than ever before, causing, among other things, anoxia in oceans and rivers.
Etc.Etc.Etc.

The list of proven consequences of global warming is already impossible to make or keep up to date. Its consequences are exponential and disrupt and amplify all natural phenomena.The situation has deteriorated considerably since this video was posted. In 2022, the measured average temperature increase is already around 1.15 degrees. The 1.5° hoped for 2,100 will once in a while be exceeded by 2026.

The climate models used for short- and medium-term projections are constantly updated and improved. They are relatively reliable. Those from the 2000s had, for example, very well described the climate from the years 2000 to 2020. They now predict an increase of 3° to 4.8° by the end of the century. European political leaders are already talking very openly about warming of more than 4° by the end of the century.

Natural disasters fueled by climate change have already displaced tens of millions of people around the world. In terms of biodiversity, the sixth mass extinction began more than a decade ago.

Global warming is not a belief but a reality with scientifically proven consequences. The world of tomorrow has absolutely no chance of resembling a pretty little green and resilient greenhouse. And nothing is being done to slow the phenomenon.

If i can allow myself a personal opinion here: nothing will be done.

So no substantial answer.

Keep sulking. If that's your choice. It's a shame you prefer to take it that way. That’s what you call “not bringing emotion here,” I guess. You can't stand being reminded of your contradictions and haughty attitudes. That's all. Beyond cultural differences and language issues, maturity also seems important.

When you open topics, expect people to respond (in the tone you use, don't buck the trend here). You have my answer.

Will AI one day destroy humans?

As things stand, no.
A super AI that wants the end of humanity would not consume energy unnecessarily to achieve this goal, strictly from the point of view of energy efficiency (ratio of energy spent / time / objective).

(no hard feelings on my part )

Off topic:
We don't go around in circles. I am pointing out a recurrent methodological flaw ( which I am willing to put down to our cultural differences or a lack of mastery of the language we use here).

You seem to read the posts like correcting a copy. You isolate a sentence, then a word within that sentence, and you extrapolate things out of context until you place the “information” that interests you. In this case, a concept which until now seemed to be lacking in you, and which you are introducing as an explanation for others. You are not doing pedagogy here on a public forum, but self-recovery ( and you know it full well, since it is your method. The problem is that it is too visible and therefore a little annoying).
This attitude is (fortunately) not “normal” (in the sense of norm) and I don’t take it “personally” because I’m paranoid. It turns out that you are responding to me without understanding my point.

When the other person tells you that something is “normal.” There is a good chance that he is talking about “normal” in the sense of the norm (the extended majority). No need to explain the various meanings of the word “normal” to him. Generally speaking, it is more efficient, in terms of constructive exchanges for common reflection, to avoid drowning the words of your interlocutors in a flood of digressions and pseudo-analyses that are more or less relevant. Everyone here have internet and ChatGPT does it much better than you.

Even if it meant retaining only one word in the first sentence of my first post, it would have been more judicious to retain the word “fantasy”. Because your super AI is a fantasy inspired by science fiction, on all levels (theoretical, conceptual, practical, etc.) and from the simple point of view of elementary logic. I gave you the pole. You didn't get it. Probably too busy checking the impact of Scawen's new AI on the quality of your mods. It's human .

Back to the topic

The reality that your science fiction fantasies prevent you from seeing is that if a super AI set itself the goal of destroying humanity (at the current stage, which is already no longer that of your reference theories. Time flies) , it would be more rational today at all levels (temporal, economic, etc., faced with multiple threats) for this super AI to do nothing. And to let humanity manage alone the problems that it itself has generated and others, more fatally unavoidable from a statistical point of view, which await it.

Our way of asking questions is already, most often, the best answer we are capable of providing.

Quote from Scawen :

I'm feeling a bit frustrated right now as the new code has seriously improved some cases but made others a bit worse. Seems like there's never an easy day when working with the AI code.

My few tests are too partial to be meaningful, and patch D42 may have generated certain bugs. But from my point of view, this patch is a real revolution for solo races. I have never had so much fun driving with AI in LFS.
Thank you for this great work.

Aleksandr,

Do not mistake yourself. There is no sarcasm on my part. Just a little fun. The link about anthropomorphism was pretty funny. We are no longer at school. Assuming that your interlocutor or the readers of this topic might need it is a bit excessive, even from a didactic point of view .

I will look at your new topic. But, I think you give up a little quickly on AI. Simply deciding unilaterally that we agree is not enough to render all discussion pointless. We have (perhaps?) the same knowledge and common references. But our opinions may still diverge, failing (alas, I fear) to contribute anything to scientific reflection on AI.

To clarify my point about AI, it is very likely that the first stone picked up from the ground by the first prehuman was thrown in the neighbour's face. Some pre-humans of this era must have developed an unconditional fear of stones. Others have set themselves the task of regulating its use. The same goes for all technological advances since the dawn of time. You opened a topic on global warming, that's very good. Unfortunately, this was just one example among many. How is the danger of AI worse, or more imminent, than that of nuclear power? bacteriological weapons? of hydraulic fracturing and all the technologies implemented since the beginnings of the modern era without, in most cases, having clear visions of their long-term consequences?

AI is only a tool invented by man, which men use for very varied objectives and with more or less consciousness. Whatever its complexity, the question of the nuisance of this tool rests on its uses, which will condition its actual level of autonomy. The theoretical hypotheses to which you refer have no other purpose than to regulate this use. AI presents no danger in itself.

Why does AI generate more concern than, for example, the bacteriological weapons of the First World War which have been lying for more than a century under a few centimetres of mud a few hundred meters from the Knokke dike? These bacteriological weapons are corroded, there is no way to recover them. Does anyone know how the viruses inside could have mutated? Since you love comparisons (joke) I can give you other examples, such as the melting of Permafrosts which releases viruses with much less predictable and more problematic effects than the dialectical excesses of ChatGPT.

There are millions of possible and very real causes for the end of humanity. The irony here is that there are so many of them, with infinite possible combined effects, that only AI can help us analyse and understand them. But people prefer to believe (and fear) that AI can one day destroy humanity, just as they once believed (and some still believe) that an extraterrestrial civilization will come and wipe them out. However, humanity has little chance of disappearing because of a form of intelligence other than its own. Our fears and our fruitless reasonings are also comfortable, distracting and often very caricatured ways of escaping reality, rather than see it.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Thu 5 Oct 2023, 18:50. Reason : Syntax errors

Dearest Alexandre,

I thank you for your condescension but I know what anthropomorphism is. And when it comes to twists and turns, semantic deviations, self-recovery and sophistic artifices, you know something about it, even if the tricks are always a little showy ( that said, without any form of animosity, please believe it. It amuses me. I am not opposing here the Argumentum ad personam in response to your argumentum ad hominem ).

Let's be serious for two minutes if we want this exchange to be profitable. I have passed the age to playing stringing sophisms like pearls and producing miles of rhetoric as hollow as it is useless.

Reread my message if necessary and you will see that I do not deny that AI is potentially dangerous. I am simply saying that it is not of its own "will" (since it has no will) but by what humans will do with it. That is to say an uncontrollable weapon who start, if you want, from a simple paper clip replication project or from ChatGPT. In fact, I intervened in this debate because all of your previous comments were very clearly tinged with anthropomorphism, like these for example.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

For example, it just might develop some bacteriological formula, send it to an unsophisticated scientist who mixes bulbs for money, and it will make an infection that will kill all of humanity. Or develop some virus that's much more effective than the coronavirus. Or something else, if I can think of it, a Super AI can come up with a much more efficient and faster way to kill humans. And the worst part is that we probably won't even realise it's because of AI. Because if we do, we can take retaliatory action, and that's something the AI doesn't need.

There is therefore no error on my part “in the wording of the question”. It's your reinterpretation of my point that is wrong (at best). This makes your demonstration obsolete and irrelevant, even your quotation from Bostrom. Clearly, we agree on the general issue. And so ? How do we move this debate forward? How can we go beyond the platitude of the obvious ? If you find it, I'm ready to debate it .

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

For example, what makes you think global warming will kill people or negatively affect nature in any way? But for this it is better to make another thread in the off-topic forum so that other people can join the dialogue. Don't reply to this with huge text, just agree and I'll do it, and we can argue there if you want.

As for “what makes me think or believe.” We can talk about it too. I'll let you handle this. You have, I think, a lot more time available than me. (and I speak English much less well than you. So I'm taking a long time to answer )

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

No, I don't think there's going to be a war between AI and humans. Especially as it's portrayed in some the Terminators films. Because war means consequences for the AI. Why do you start something that will hurt you? It can be smarter than that...

We project a lot of fantasies onto AI and that’s normal. AI already has operational capabilities far superior to those of humans in many areas. But where would AI find the will to implement them, for any personal project?
By what technological miracle could AI be endowed with a consciousness capable of setting its own goals?
AI was developed to make objective decisions, making tactical choices with defined and precise objectives. Including the goal of creating, like humans. But AI creations are only intelligible from a human point of view. It's a projection. The AI's creations make no sense to the AI. The AI can simply justify its mimetic choices.
Certainly, today's AI can instantly create better content than most humans. AI will certainly make a large majority of humanity completely obsolete from the perspective of the dominant ideology. This is its reason for existence and its main danger. This is not surprising given that AI is the tool of the dominant ideology.
We will undoubtedly succeed in creating a terminator close to James Cameron's fantasy. Maybe he'll give a thumbs up before he disappears. He will not do it of his own will. On the other hand, and it is much more dangerous since it is possible, humans can use AI to create a weapon of uncontrollable destruction. Artificial intelligence serves a very real stupidity.
The good news is that with the AI of the future, you will lose more often at games. But you have every chance of dying from the causes of global warming before an AI decides on its own to crush you like an ant.

Quote from Racer Y :

.... Whatever happened to hydrogen fuel cells?

Hydrogen fuel cells and combustion engines will return to the forefront when the industry has finished organizing itself to sell us water at the same price, or even much more expensive, than fossil fuels. This will end the great charade of electric cars powered by lithium batteries.
By then, other solutions that are more viable, less dangerous, lighter, much less expensive and finally environmentally friendly will also have emerged (such as magnesium or hemp batteries, certain synthetic fuels, etc. ).
These real electrical and thermic solutions will make the contemporary electric car market technologically obsolete. Which, in its current form, constitutes the most needlessly consumerist and scandalous project that humanity has ever imagined ( Please note that I am making a considerable effort here to express my thoughts in the most balanced terms possible).

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Tue 3 Oct 2023, 12:50. Reason : Spelling and syntax errors as usual +Adding the quote to contextualize the point

Quote from cargame.nl :

Not really. In Trackmania all other vehicles are ghosts. In LFS it are all moving obstacles.

I agree. I would add that this is (here and for this use) a marketing artifice, in the sense that this approach is unnecessarily consumerist, since a very basic vector plotting algorithm would have automatically eliminated most of the unnecessary attempts.
LFS needs more realistic AI in order to improve the experience of solo races (which all players do at one time or another). I don't think the issue here is (well, not yet ) to make a torpedo homing head type AI attached to the player's butt.

Quote from GT4_PL :

I made test version D vs D40 vs D41 so different overtake!
D40 is better can tryhard, D41 not.
Ai is fear overtake while racing corners but last corner can overtake it.

Grey Car - 118bhp/ton
Red/Green Car - 136bhp/ton (A bit fast car if can overtake test)

Both same use Super Road Tyres.

Your comparison is interesting. It shows the progress of the Patchs.
Sorry, and maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to me that the D41 is better.

The D40 overtakes the motorcycle somewhat by chance. If the motorcycle had been positioned in any other location, the AI would have hit it, the same way it tackles Eric's butt in the final turn.
With more cars on the track, the D40's AI driving would generally be more accident-prone than the D41's which generally seems more controlled. The AI seems to wait for the best moment to overtake, without getting unnecessarily excited with gaps that would have caused collisions with more cars on the track.

Quote from Ricochet1136 :

I did also observe all those further issues you have listed above in my testing, however one minor additional thing I did notice is sometimes the AI can be a tad aggressive and can end up banging wheels with other AI or scraping them against the walls on the exits of fast turns, this usually is mostly harmless and both cars usually get away with extremely minor damage (if any), but in a couple of cases (especially with bikes) it did trigger a wreck.

I also observed this phenomenon when entering a turn. The bots are exactly side by side. They jostle and bang on the walls. For bicycles, this can be problematic.

For racing cars, I found it quite amusing. It literally feels like they're trying to impress each other (with a little imagination).
An AI that was content to follow a path perfectly, simply by being competitive, would quickly become boring.

Patch D41 significantly improves the racing experience.
In addition to what has been said, accidents between the AI and the player are less frequent than before. Bots leave more space between them and less squeeze into each other at the first opportunity. It is easier to overtake and get back on the right path without getting hit. Even in slightly extreme overtaking just before a turn (Tarzan for example). it gives the impression that bots are a little attentive to what the player is doing. This wasn't really obvious before. This thing alone is a huge improvement to the gaming experience.
The races are generally smoother and more realistic (more confortables too).

The only "slightly negative" thing I observed (on a few race starts but systematically) was pileups at the first corner of Rockingham Historic with 20 AI driving the same car (FZR). This tight turn has always been problematic, but collisions were less frequent there in the same conditions before the patch. What's strange is that these crashes are less frequent and less spectacular whith AI race alone on other computers than my game computer... Maybe there no explication here ?

Quote from rane_nbg :

To me, AI is good as is, they follow a path very well. What needs work is calculating the optimal AI path. This is autogenerated if there isn't one already available. This algorithm is quite complex and tricky, but Scawen managed to do it somehow and we can even see some iteration steps and optimization during path autogeneration. If I were in his place, I would put my focus on improving this algorithm to generate faster lines, that use more track width have later braking points, and better effort to hit the corner apex as now all of them are too wide and too fast at corner entry.

I don't know which method Scawen used there, but the best approach for this is an implementation of deep neural networks with a genetic algorithm. This is the only way that AI can actually be somewhat aware and have a learning capability, but these things are state-of-the-art research at the moment and this would be an overkill to implement in LFS.

Without getting into too philosophical considerations, there are an infinite number of ways to follow a path. The current AI (before patch D40) is not inherently bad. I ignore how it work? The problem is that the Ai struggles to do the job.

The first question to ask yourself (from my point of view ) before thinking about “how to do it?” » is therefore: What is the job of AI?

It's not clear that we all have the same answer here.

From my point of view, the AI serves to entertain the player, to produce for him the illusion of a real race.
It is therefore important to consider the AI from the player's point of view (in the cockpit view) and in its interaction with the player. This means from an always partial point of view on the overall behaviour and general performance of the AI. It's different from watching the AI driving alone.

Certainly, the conduct of AI must be generally consistent, credible and effective. But the overriding objective is that the races are stimulating and adapted (or adaptable) to the player's level.

It's no use that AI uses the same physics as the player to crash at the first curve. It is best for the AI to use a suitable physics that compensates for its shortcomings. Or, that AI drives versions of cars that are mechanically different from the player's cars. By using for example ABS, on cars which are not normally equipped with it, or better tires, artificially accumulated grip, or less heavy cars etc. The objective to achieve is that AI to do the job.

I know that these solutions are not "intellectually" satisfying from a perfectionist point of view and that they do not conform to the practices of neural programming. These solutions have the merit of working in practice and are easy to implement. Who better than the author of a mod will be able to calibrate an AI that drives its cars the way it was supposed to be driven? Who better than the player will know how to adjust the AI that suits them?

Current AI can be improved, that’s a fact. I have no doubt that, with his known perseverance and tenacity, Scawen will succeed in making AI capable of driving F1 cars as well as bicycles or combine harvesters.

But is this the shortest path for AI to do the job? Is the (otherwise necessary) improvement of an algorithm enough here ? Aren’t there additional and simple things to put in place for greater efficiency?
(Without going into major unnecessary work before the new tire physics)

-------------
short version:

General objective: Make the user experience more satisfactory.
The means: Improve what can be + give users the tools to satisfy themselves (They will work on it and will no longer complain, or less).
= more latitude for modders to create physics for the AI, adapted to their mods.
= The possibility for the player to better adjust the AI or, if it is too complicated, to adjust the physics of the cars driven by the IA.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Fri 29 Sep 2023, 09:58. Reason : spelling error corrections + short version:

Quote from Ricochet1136 :

At the end of the day though, that's all these are is just some observations with a sprinkling of opinions on where I personally think the limitations of these new AI changes sit, so I'm not surprised people will have different viewpoints to my own. Overall I do think these changes as they currently stand are a very positive step forward for the AI in LFS, but of course there's always room for improvement

The fact that we do not look in the same places, and therefore do not see the same things, does not mean that we disagree. You see the glass half empty. I see the glass half full. The important thing is that our observations are useful to a mental process that goes beyond us .

Absolutely magical car with superb details. The dashboard is incredibly realistic. The car almost drives itself. That's wonderful. If I dared, I would say it's even better than usual .

THANKS.

Quote from Ricochet1136 :

Hopefully these are of some degree of use and not just nonsense rambling, but if they are I'll just happily return to my cave lol and patiently wait for future updates

The AI lacks conversation. You needed to talk. Everyone can understand it

Jokes aside, what you say is very interesting (at least for another bear in his cave ). We all have different experiences with AI that are complementary. (I hope they are useful and not stupidly time consuming for Scawen. Maybe this is not the right place to talk about it?).

I often choose Aston cadet REV for my tests, for reasons exactly opposite to yours. It is a complex track with unusual technical passages.Before patch 40, it was impossible to race there with GTRs. After a few laps, the AI inevitably massed in herd to eat the grass of the first corner.
With the D40 patch, I was finally able to do a 20 lap race with no other problem than taking the lead too quickly and too easily. It appears that the new overtaking strategy may work better on some tracks than others.
I have also observed the consequences of the "emergency braking" that you speak of. In 2 races on Rockingham Historic, cars lined up side by side, perpendicular to the track, and no longer moved. This has not happened again since.
It would seem (and I would appreciate Scawen's opinion and your feedback) that the AI is behaving differently in the first races, or scalable to a certain extent, as long as the races continue without change track.
First, the AI remains in single file on its trajectory. Then the AI distributes itself a little better on the track on the straights. Finally, the AI begins to attack. And there followed a few slightly chaotic races, and it ends up stabilizing until we changed the grid or the track. Sometimes, without changing anything, an epidemic of pileups sets in, as if the AI were going crazy.I have observed this phenomenon on several computers and multiple installations of LFS.

So, I ask you these questions:
Have you observed the same “trend” at home?
How many times have you repeated your experiments to establish your conclusions?

Don't worry. You were under no obligation to delete your poll. Assume your positions and your actions. You are in one of the rare spaces of freedom in the world.

Beautiful new avatar image

Quote from Ibtasim6781 :

Why people assume I mean this needs to be added RIGHT NOW? There is no indication anywhere in the thread where I demand its an urgent matter. Just a suggestion that can be added (or not) later down the road

You have several dedicated topics to compile various suggestions for improvement.

Maybe, creating a poll on a specific topic for a problem that is as secondary as it is rare seems to demonstrate a very great frustration that requires a quick solution ?

But, unless I'm mistaken, no one has accused you of wanting it right now !

It wasn't a request. Just notes on how the AI uses the same physics as the player. I know and understand your priorities.
I am already very satisfied with this patch, which I did not expect.

Quote from Scawen :

The level of understanding for where you can push and the lines to take, is not an easy thing to code.

Please forgive me for the triviality of these remarks, and I don't know if this helps.

Improving decision-making for overtaking is a very good thing. But the AI's weakness also lies in long curves and turns. The grip of the tires and the handling do not seem to be exploited to the maximum. Sometimes the AI corrects a loss of rear grip, while the player at maximum acceleration in the same place with the same car does not feel it.
The AI also brakes too early and too gradually. As if the AI respected an endurance-type racing protocol, always remaining below the limits.
The virtual racer doesn't calculate like that. He will use his car as much as possible. His limit is to finish the race.

Perhaps the AI's driving could be better adapted to the number of laps, just like the amount of fuel? The AI would thus be more aggressive, heat its tires more in short races and be faster.

Quote from Scawen :

Years ago I updated the development version quite a bit, to make the cars a bit more competitive. Unlike in some games, the AI in LFS use the same physics as human drivers, and it's not an easy task to make them simply drive faster. The level of understanding for where you can push and the lines to take, is not an easy thing to code.

Deciding that AI uses the same physics as humans is an ambitious choice. This requires AI to be as responsive, calculating, reckless and unpredictable as a virtual racer, to achieve the same level of performance and appear credible. I understand it's a bit difficult to code

The improvement in AI anticipation undeniably improves the way it drives. Until the AI becomes more human, giving it a little mechanical advantage works pretty well to make offline racing more enjoyable. This is the desired result. And it works best with patch D40.

Thanks for spending the time to improve this. Despite the impatience, provocations and other nonsense that we can read, all your efforts to improve this game are always very appreciated.

Quote from Ibtasim6781 :

If you mean the rename thing for them to appear in the Test tab, yes that kinda "works" but its annoying

Yes, especially for 4 GB. You might as well wait for the connection to work again.

I was talking about a quick emergency solution for playing offline with your favourite mods.
Having offline access to the list of mods installed on your computer does not seem very complicated to code, and even necessary.
You are right.

It's just that this list is currently so infunctional with irrelevant filters that it is more convenient to do without it offline. In my humble opinion, it is more urgent to solve this problem first, before it becomes impossible to implement new categories for thousands of mods after the fact.

+1
Currently, even with patch D40, which is a real improvement eagerly awaited by (almost) everyone, the AI remains too slow.

I don't know about bikes, but for LFS turbos and GTRs, a slow racer with the default setup can go from last to first in just 5 laps, against 20 AI.
Two additional levels seem good to increase AI speed by 2-4 seconds per turn on medium length tracks.

The other home-made solution consists of manufacturing specific cars for the AI adapted to its level. But the general behavior of the AI must first be improved. With the D40 patch, it's already much better. Thanks Scawen

It's already very easy to use your favorite mods offline. On the other hand, being able to organize them in different folders (without having to rename them) would be nice.