SUPPORT THE APPLICATION: I play sim-type games, and the non-gamers you send have skills, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes. That’s why I sometimes put them in places where I know they can make them unhappy, like sending a guy who is afraid of space to find my asteroid. The results can be amusing. But I also feel that I don’t let them live a better life. Am I doing the wrong thing?
–Master of Prisons
Dear Master Dungeon,
These games allow ordinary people to play with God. You become the destroyer of your digital art, telling what the people whose lives, like they are, remain submissive to your interests. Playing them raises a number of questions that have long been taken up by theological and tragic writings.
Ever since we humans started writing, it seems, we doubt that we are fools at the top game. In the file of Iliad, Hector, realizing that he is facing death, complains that men are a game of gods, who want to change every day. It is the last to be mentioned by Gloucester in King Lear, as they roamed the seas blindly blinded. “Like flies to the naughty boys we are to the gods. / They kill us for their game. ”
In the book of Job, Satan and God promised that if Job, a righteous man, would curse God if he suffered in some way. With God’s backing, Satan kills Job’s children, servants, and livestock and causes his body to explode with boils. Job, unaware that his sufferings are merely a matter of renting a gentleman, thinks that his misfortune is God’s punishment. “My flesh is full of worms and ears of dust,” he cries. “My skin is broken, and is loosed … My soul is a breath.”
It is easy to read these verses without feeling sorry for the victims. And I think that the instability when you irritate the characters means that you doubt that you will also make them suffer because of your entertainment. Obviously, participants — NPCs — are just mindless and mindless algorithms, so they can’t feel the pain or the discomfort. That is, in any case, a union. But humans, as you know, have a bad reputation for ignoring the interests of other creatures (Descartes believes that animals are just machines and do not suffer pain), so it is important to take some time to consider the possibility of suffering.
Many NPCs rely on tree-based systems that adhere strictly to the rule-of-control, or – to the most advanced – machine learning systems that shape their adaptive mechanisms. Suffering is often linked to substances such as nociceptors, prostaglandins, and neuronal opioid receptors, so it seems that video readers do not have the brain tools needed to respond to pain. Depression (our ability to panic, anxiety, discomfort) is extremely difficult, from neurological to physical, although the sensitivity of humans and other animals often depends on external perceptions regulated by the five senses. Since these algorithms do not have access to the earth – they cannot see, hear, or hear – there is no doubt that they can be anxious.
However, when it comes to complex behaviors, neurology is not the only thing that can be considered. Some ethical philosophers have argued that the ability to have self-interest — the ability to see the world through good and bad consequences and to make decisions on the basis of it — is a sure sign of real suffering. One of the advantages of expressing preference rather than pain is that while the pain is permanent, it is only a matter of feeling for the sufferer, his or her preferences can be seen. We know that cats have their own interests because they recover in the bath water and sometimes run away when the dogs come. What your NPCs have, as you say, “some skills, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes” shows that they really have interests, even if it’s something you can try with a simple view. When you put them in unnecessary places do they refuse or struggle? Does it reflect the face or body language that you associate with fear? You could argue that such systems were only designed by their makers, but animal preferences can also be considered as a type of algorithm developed with a history of evolution.