AI concept of the '80ies ... why?

[Chacal]

Hullu said:

No matter how much you struggly, computer does not generate random numbers (except perhaps with an outside source of randomness, which also most likely is just pseudorandomness

Yea, offtopic, I know, just had to say it!

Radioactive source seem to be a good source of true random
==> http://www.random.org/

Anyway, have anybody here ever seen a good AI in a game (others than chess) ? Personnaly, I see none. Scripts are limited and once understood easly cracked. A true good AI is probably far beyond the focus of a game.

[zepath]

Well...

I, for one, do not want to see any AIs more sophisticated than the one that we have in Dom 3. If they get too smart they'll start posing a serious challenge even on lower settings and they inevitably try to take over the world. Furthermore, I don't really want John Conner to end up as the leader of the human race. He was a punk *** kid. So just say, "No!" to better AIs. And keep them the hell away from our thermonuclear devices, please!

[PhilD]

chacal_ said:
Radioactive source seem to be a good source of true random
==> http://www.random.org/

Yeah, and electronic noise should be another good one, potentially with higher rates. If only we could get some electronics into computers...

I did some quick searches on the subject (as a side line to some "randomized algorithms" lectures I give), and I seem to remember reading that CPU makers (Intel et al.) typically have the means of including pretty good, unpredictable, irreproduceable random number generators in their chips, only it doesn't look like the demand is really there (since space on chips has to come at the expense of some other functions, the integrated RNG has to compete with other, chromier stuff that will make them sell a few more units.