Milo in Project Natal fake.

[Recursion]

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/06/07/exposed-natel-milo-smoke-and-mirrors-by-peter-molyneux/

Knew it.

[Oleh]

Im annoyed that most of natal is revealed as fake, this is probably a prototype though and by 2011 we will have sufficient technology to make this a reality

[Skajo]

I spent about 2 hours trying to convince two of my friends that the whole voice recognition thing is bogus. Logic wins again, as it always will.

[CJW93]

To good to be true

[mangle]

The natal itself is not fake, just Milo. Quite frankly I do not care about Milo anyway.

[MrPinkPanther]

The funniest thing I think is that both Iwata and Miyamoto have said that they already tried the Natal approach before they developed the Wiimote and it wasn't sensitive enough. Obviously technology has moved on but so has the Wiimote with "MotionPlus".

The one thing that really showcased Natals capabilities has been shown as fake, it doesn't bode well for the future.

[Jordy]

The natal itself is not fake, just Milo. Quite frankly I do not care about Milo anyway.I agree, I couldn't think of anything sadder to do with my time than talk to a TV screen.

Frankly I'm not surprised, Peter Molyneux is a complete moron and I've said this for a long time, he consistently lies, exaggerates and over-hypes virtually everything he does. And for this he is one of the most respected people in the gaming industry, and the British Media like him cause he's probably the most well known Brit in the Gaming world.

[Neil]

I agree, I couldn't think of anything sadder to do with my time than talk to a TV screen.

Frankly I'm not surprised, Peter Molyneux is a complete moron and I've said this for a long time, he consistently lies, exaggerates and over-hypes virtually everything he does. And for this he is one of the most respected people in the gaming industry, and the British Media like him cause he's probably the most well known Brit in the Gaming world.

People respect him because he is a visionary, dispite games that come under his name not being as amazing as he says they're still some of the best games ever made, people like him are the way forward with the games industry.

[Technologic]

Well this was unexpected. </sarcasm>

[J0SH]

They wanted to advertise the product, the advert or whatever may be fake but who's to stay during the production that Milo won't come to life?

[Skajo]

They wanted to advertise the product, the advert or whatever may be fake but who's to stay during the production that Milo won't come to life?
Because logic dictates it's impossible, that's who.

[J0SH]

How's it impossible? The technology is out there, Microsoft can do it.. Vista has voice recognision so I'm sure they can interegate it onto 360.

[Neil]

Because logic dictates it's impossible, that's who.

Many things are seemingly impossible but it still occurs, black holes for instance.

[Simmzay]

I think what he means is that the product can never truly live upto its promise as it will always ultimately be scripted. The A.I can be intelligent but never really a true substitute for real human interaction.

[C00KZ.]

Who wants to talk to a computer anyway?

[Skajo]

How's it impossible? The technology is out there, Microsoft can do it.. Vista has voice recognision so I'm sure they can interegate it onto 360.
It's hard to explain: basically, there's an unlimited number of things that can be said to 'Milo' and he has to respond to all of them using your facial expressions, past conversations and everything. His responses HAVE to be scripted into the program, correct? Otherwise he wouldn't be able to respond - if he will only have a certain range of replies to each question and none for many questions because it would require an unlimited amount of script. Everything has to be scripted, it's impossible not to be scripted. Voice recognition is different to what Microsoft and Molyneux were claiming Natal could do - it was voice recognition plus response. The response bit is where logic dictates it impossible.

Sure, you can bring up the argument about black holes but have you ever been in a black hole? Have you actually ever seen a black hole? Not on the TV, not on the Internet - actually in the sky? No. Who says they're real? You get told what a black hole is and you instantly believe it. No-one has ever been in a black hole, no-one knows.

I welcome this optimism by Microsoft and Molyneux but until I actually engage with it myself and test it's range - I won't believe it, and nor should anyone else as proved by the findings that it's fake.

[Neil]

It's hard to explain: basically, there's an unlimited number of things that can be said to 'Milo' and he has to respond to all of them using your facial expressions, past conversations and everything. His responses HAVE to be scripted into the program, correct? Otherwise he wouldn't be able to respond - if he will only have a certain range of replies to each question and none for many questions because it would require an unlimited amount of script. Everything has to be scripted, it's impossible not to be scripted. Voice recognition is different to what Microsoft and Molyneux were claiming Natal could do - it was voice recognition plus response. The response bit is where logic dictates it impossible.

Sure, you can bring up the argument about black holes but have you ever been in a black hole? Have you actually ever seen a black hole? Not on the TV, not on the Internet - actually in the sky? No. Who says they're real? You get told what a black hole is and you instantly believe it. No-one has ever been in a black hole, no-one knows.

I welcome this optimism by Microsoft and Molyneux but until I actually engage with it myself and test it's range - I won't believe it, and nor should anyone else as proved by the findings that it's fake.

It's not impossible, at this moment in time they can't have huge conversations with computer AI but the technology needs to advance more before it's possible, right now if it's possible to code it there is a way where you can do it, it would just require someone saying everything in the English language, then some smart people code a way to make the program recognise questions etc. and let it kind of generate a response, I donno if it's possible, I do know it's not a simple idea but who knows and you say logic says it's impossible for a response yet he respondes, you ask him a question and the question is answered, it may be scripted but he still respondes, at no point does he just sit doing nothing or miss a statement.

[Technologic]

Btw, it's not A.I. it's a fancy chatbot.

[Skajo]

It's not impossible, at this moment in time they can't have huge conversations with computer AI but the technology needs to advance more before it's possible, right now if it's possible to code it there is a way where you can do it, it would just require someone saying everything in the English language, then some smart people code a way to make the program recognise questions etc. and let it kind of generate a response, I donno if it's possible, I do know it's not a simple idea but who knows and you say logic says it's impossible for a response yet he respondes, you ask him a question and the question is answered, it may be scripted but he still respondes, at no point does he just sit doing nothing or miss a statement.
If he doesn't understand a question a pre-scripted response will come out saying "Sorry I don't understand that" - this technology is freaking ancient. They were saying that you can literally ask it anything and get a response that a particular question - that's impossible.

[Neil]

Btw, it's not A.I. it's a fancy chatbot.

Chatbots are A.I, you say one thing, they give you a normally correct response, it's still A.I, not quite as perfect as the future may bring but it's still A.I.


If he doesn't understand a question a pre-scripted response will come out saying "Sorry I don't understand that" - this technology is freaking ancient. They were saying that you can literally ask it anything and get a response that a particular question - that's impossible.

Again, you can't say it's impossible, you say you wont be budged until you get on it yourself, fair enough but you can't say somethings imopssible without receiving proof that it is impossible, since it's impossible at this moment to say it's impossible no proof exists.

[Skajo]

Again, you can't say it's impossible, you say you wont be budged until you get on it yourself, fair enough but you can't say somethings imopssible without receiving proof that it is impossible, since it's impossible at this moment to say it's impossible no proof exists.
If no proof exists that it's possible, then it's logical to say that's it's impossible.

[Niall!]

If no proof exists that it's possible, then it's logical to say that's it's impossible.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're atheist.

Also, black holes exist, there are satellite photos and stuff.

[Skajo]

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're atheist.

Also, black holes exist, there are satellite photos and stuff.
I am. Can you prove God exists? No. Therefore it does not exist until proven otherwise.

No, you've seen a photo of what you have been told is a black hole and you have been told what they do - you have not been shown in a formality what they do; the wool has well and truly been pulled over your eyes on the matter.

[Neil]

I am. Can you prove God exists? No. Therefore it does not exist until proven otherwise.

No, you've seen a photo of what you have been told is a black hole and you have been told what they do - you have not been shown in a formality what they do; the wool has well and truly been pulled over your eyes on the matter.

Can you prove black holes don't exist?

[Niall!]

I am. Can you prove God exists? No. Therefore it does not exist until proven otherwise.

No, you've seen a photo of what you have been told is a black hole and you have been told what they do - you have not been shown in a formality what they do; the wool has well and truly been pulled over your eyes on the matter.

Herp derp I call someone an atheist so I automatically say god exists.

[Oleh]

i think they will release it next year as said, and just update it regularly with question packs

[Skajo]

Can you prove black holes don't exist?
I don't have to - nothing exists until proven otherwise - this is why things get invented and thus proved these things are possible. Until I can see the effects of a black hole for myself or seen solid evidence that black holes exist then I see no reason to believe they do. I've never seen one, neither have you (in the flesh) so why should you believe what someone has told/shown you?

I could say, there's a place in space that gives out free chicken legs to passers by from another planet. Can you prove that it doesn't exist? Your argument is flawed, I think you can see this from this point.

[Neil]

I don't have to - nothing exists until proven otherwise - this is why things get invented and thus proved these things are possible. Until I can see the effects of a black hole for myself or seen solid evidence that black holes exist then I see no reason to believe they do. I've never seen one, neither have you (in the flesh) so why should you believe what someone has told/shown you?

I could say, there's a place in space that gives out free chicken legs to passers by from another planet. Can you prove that it doesn't exist? Your argument is flawed, I think you can see this from this point.

The argument isn't flawed, who's to say there isn't a place in pace that does that? You haven't seen proof that it doesn't exist, it's a possibilty that it can exist, it could be done on earth if aliens started visiting regularly.