Advertisement

Science Considered Helpful

  • R. Michael YoungEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11318)

Abstract

As the interactive narrative community continues to mature, discussions are beginning in which we debate the relative merits of differing methodologies, discuss priorities around classes of problems and look at epistemological questions that arise from what we perceive as limitations of our work. Horswill’s Science Considered Harmful initiated a conversation around the role of science in the advancement of knowledge in our field, putting forward the idea that a scientific mindset restricts our ability to progress. In this paper, I respond, arguing that science, and more generally scientific rigor and the kind of results that it produces, are well served by a discourse that makes productive distinctions between such things as science and not science. In particular, I argue that such a thing as a science of narrative exists, that scientific work is an important way to advance our knowledge of computational models of narrative and that scholarly practice around interactive narrative research does not need to be viewed as only scientific or as only artistic/aesthetic.

Keywords

Interactive narrative Sciences of the artificial Theoretical foundations Methodology, research and scholarship 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported in whole or in part with funding from the Laboratory for Analytic Sciences (LAS). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LAS and/or any agency or entity of the United States Government.

References

  1. 1.
    Amos-Binks, A., Spain, R., Young, R.M.: Subjective experience of intention revision. In: Advances in Cognitive Systems (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argamon, S., Dubnov, S., Jupp, J., et al.: Style and meaning in language, art, music and design. In: Proceedings of the 2004 AAAI Symposium (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahamón, J.C., Barot, C., Young, R.M.: A goal-based model of personality for planning-based narrative generation. In: AAAI, pp. 4142–4143 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bay, M.: Transformers 6: The Last Knight. Paramount Pictures, Murphy, Don and DeSanto, Tom and diBonaventura, Lorenzo and Bryce, Ian (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyer, E.: Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorties of the Professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruner, J.: The narrative construction of reality. Crit. Inq. 18(1), 1–21 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cardona-Rivera, R.E., Price, T.W., Winer, D., Young, R.M.: Question answering in the context of stories generated by computers. Adv. Cognit. Syst. 4, 227–246 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cavazza, M., Charles, F., Mead, S.: Character-based interactive storytelling. IEEE Intell. Syst. 17(4), 17–24 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chambers, N., Jurafsky, D.: Unsupervised learning of narrative event chains. In: ACL, vol. 94305, pp. 789–797 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheong, Y., Young, R.: A computational model of narrative generation for suspense. In: Working Notes of the AAAI 2006 Workshop on Computational Aesthetics, pp. 8–14 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christian, D., Young, R.M.: Comparing cognitive and computational models of narrative structure. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 385–390. American Association of Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen, H.: The further exploits of AARON, painter. Stanf. Hum. Rev. 4(2), 141–158 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen, P.R.: Empirical Methods for Artificial Intelligence, vol. 139. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen, P.R., Howe, A.E.: How evaluation guides AI research: the message still counts more than the medium. AI Mag. 9(4), 35 (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Comisky, P., Bryant, J.: Factors involved in generating suspense. Hum. Commun. Res. 9(1), 49–58 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dannenberg, R.B., Raphael, C.: Music score alignment and computer accompaniment. Commun. ACM 49(8), 38–43 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denning, P.J.: The science in computer science. Commun. ACM 56(5), 35–38 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2447976.2447988MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-Nasr, M.S., Horswill, I.: Automating lighting design for interactive entertainment. CIE 2(2), 15–15 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fisher, W.R.: Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. University of South Carolina Press (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gerrig, R.: Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gervás, P., Díaz-Agudo, B., Peinado, F., Hervás, R.: Story plot generation based on CBR. Knowl. Based Syst. 18(4), 235–242 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graesser, A.C., Franklin, S.P.: Quest: a cognitive model of question answering. Discourse Process. 13(3), 279–303 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haslum, P.: Narrative planning: compilations to classical planning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 44, 383 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hayton, T., Porteous, J., Ferreira, J.F., Lindsay, A., Read, J.: Storyframer: from input stories to output planning models. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (KEPS), at The 27th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herman, D.: Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horswill, I.: Science considered harmful. In: Proceedings of AIIDE (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jhala, A., Young, R.M.: Cinematic visual discourse: representation, generation, and evaluation. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. Artif. Intell. Games 2, 69–81 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li, B., Lee-Urban, S., Johnston, G., Riedl, M.: Story generation with crowdsourced plot graphs. In: AAAI (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin, G.I., Walker, M.A.: All the world’s a stage: learning character models from film. In: AIIDE (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lukin, S.M., Reed, L., Walker, M.A.: Generating sentence planning variations for story telling. In: SIGDIAL Conference, pp. 188–197 (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Magliano, J.P., Loschky, L.C., Clinton, J., Larson, A.M.: Is reading the same as viewing? An exploration of the similarities and differences between processing text- and visually based narratives. In: Miller, B., Cutting, L., McCardle, P. (eds.) Unraveling the Behavioral, Neurobiological, and Genetic Components of Reading Comprehension, vol. 8, pp. 78–90. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Magliano, J.P., Taylor, H.A., Kim, H.J.J.: When goals collide: monitoring the goals of multiple characters. Mem. Cogn. 33(8), 1357–1367 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Magliano, J., Dijkstra, K., Zwaan, R.: Generating predictive inferences while viewing a movie. Discourse Process. 22(3), 199–224 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mateas, M., Sengers, P.: Narrative intelligence. In: Papers from the 1999 Fall Symposium. Technical report, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA Technical Report FS-99-0 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mawhorter, P., Mateas, M., Wardrip-Fruin, N.: Generating relaxed, obvious, and dilemma choices with dunyazad. In: AIIDE, pp. 58–64 (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Niehaus, J., Young, R.: A method for generating narrative discourse to prompt inferences. In: Workshop on Intelligent Narrative Technologies, vol. 3 (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nilsson, N.J.: The Quest for Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    O’Neill, B., Riedl, M.: Dramatis: a computational model of suspense. In: AAAI, AAAI 2014, pp. 944–950 (2014). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2893873.2894021
  39. 39.
    Porteous, J.: Planning technologies for interactive storytelling. In: Nakatsu, R., Rauterberg, M., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) Handbook of Digital Games and Entertainment Technologies. Springer, Singapore (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-50-4_71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Radvansky, G.A.: Across the event horizon. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21(4), 269–272 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412451274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Radvansky, G.A., Copeland, D.E.: Walking through doorways causes forgetting: situation models and experienced space. Mem. Cogn. 34(5), 1150–1156 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Riedl, M., Young, R.M.: Narrative planning: balancing plot and character. JAIR 39(1), 217–268 (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ryan, M.L.: Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1991)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shirvani, A., Ware, S.G., Farrell, R.: A possible worlds model of belief for state-space narrative planning. In: Proceedings of the 13th AAAI International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, pp. 101–107 (2017)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Simon, H.A.: The science of design: creating the artificial. Des. Issues 4(1/2), 67–82 (1988). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singer, M., Ferreira, F.: Inferring consequences in story comprehansion. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 22, 437–448 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Speer, N.K., Zacks, J.M., Reynolds, J.R.: Human brain activity time-locked to narrative event boundaries. Psychol. Sci. 18(5), 449–455 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Swanson, R., Escoffery, D., Jhala, A.: Learning visual composition preferences from an annotated corpus generated through gameplay. In: CIG, pp. 363–370. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tearse, B., Mateas, M., Wardrip-Fruin, N.: Minstrel remixed: a rational reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the Intelligent Narrative Technologies III Workshop, INT3 2010, pp. 1–7. ACM (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1822309.1822321
  51. 51.
    Teutenberg, J., Porteous, J.: Incorporating global and local knowledge in intentional narrative planning. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1539–1546. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2015)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thorne, B., Young, R.M.: Generating stories that include failed actions by modeling false character beliefs. Technical report, University of Utah (2017). eAE TR 2017-001Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Valls-Vargas, J., Zhu, J., Ontanon, S.: Error analysis in an automated narrative information extraction pipeline. IEEE TCAIG 9, 342 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ware, S.G., Young, R.M., Harrison, B., Roberts, D.L.: A computational model of narrative conflict at the fabula level. IEEE TCIAIG 6(3), 271–288 (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Young, R.M.: Sketching a generative model of intention management for characters in stories:adding intention management to a belief-driven story planning algorithm. Technical report, University of Utah (2017). eAE TR 2017–002Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Young, R.M.: Story and discourse: a bipartite model of narrative generation in virtual worlds. Interact. Stud. 8(2), 177–208 (2010). Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial SystemsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Young, R.M., Riedl, M.O., Branly, M., Jhala, A., Martin, R., Saretto, C.: An architecture for integrating plan-based behavior generation with interactive game environments. J. Game Dev. 1(1), 51–70 (2004)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yu, H., Riedl, M.O.: Optimizing players expected enjoyment in interactive stories. In: AIIDE, pp. 100–106 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Entertainment Arts and Engineering Program and School of ComputingUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations