An easy way to differentiate the two kinds for those who like games is: People who can play Mario Kart thousands of times and have a lot of fun. People who must play the new final fantasy.
There are those who do both, and those who only enjoy games designed for doing the same thing, better and better, every five minutes.
Compare the complexity of handball with the complexity of bowling.
Maybe bowling is Eliezer::boring but it isn’t boring for a lot of people.
It would be a waste of energetic resources if FAI gave those people Final Fantasy 777 instead of just letting them play Mario Kart 9.
The tough question then becomes: Are those of us who enjoy Mario Kart and bowling willing to concede the kind of fun that the Eliezer Final Fantasy, pro-increasing-rate-of-complexity find desirable? They will be consuming soooo much energy for their fun.
Isn’t it fair that we share the pie half in half, and they consume theirs exponencially, while we enjoy for subjectively longer?
People who can play Mario Kart thousands of times and have a lot of fun. People who must play the new final fantasy.
Do you really play Mario Kart thousands of times because you love repeating the same thing? Or do you love it because you have a finer eye for small detail than the new FF player, and so are noticing new novelty each time you play? I know I can watch “King Kong” or “Halloween” over and over again partly because I notice something new each time I watch those films.
That being said, I think a proper fun theory would probably have some sort of error bars around the level of boredom that is acceptable. In other words a creature that gets bored x% less easily than the median human is might still be a worthwhile creature, but creating a creature x+1% less easily bored would be bad (unless such a creature is instrumentally useful, obviously).
I know I can watch “King Kong” or “Halloween” over and over again partly because I notice something new each time I watch those films.
If we’re defining “novelty” such that it encompasses literally watching the same movie over and over again, then maybe it’s time to step back and consider whether we need a new word, since we’re moving so far away from the intuitive definition of “novelty”.
Another question came to my mind while thinking about this today. How often do you play Mario Kart alone vs. with friends? Adding social interaction to the game vastly increases its complexity. Probably part of the reason it’s more enduring than the FF games is that most of those games are single player, so the complexity is limited by your inability to play against other humans. Good multiplayer games are probably so replayable partly because they are venues for social interaction, which is a very, very complex form of novelty.
An easy way to differentiate the two kinds for those who like games is: People who can play Mario Kart thousands of times and have a lot of fun. People who must play the new final fantasy.
There are those who do both, and those who only enjoy games designed for doing the same thing, better and better, every five minutes.
Compare the complexity of handball with the complexity of bowling.
Maybe bowling is Eliezer::boring but it isn’t boring for a lot of people.
It would be a waste of energetic resources if FAI gave those people Final Fantasy 777 instead of just letting them play Mario Kart 9.
The tough question then becomes: Are those of us who enjoy Mario Kart and bowling willing to concede the kind of fun that the Eliezer Final Fantasy, pro-increasing-rate-of-complexity find desirable? They will be consuming soooo much energy for their fun.
Isn’t it fair that we share the pie half in half, and they consume theirs exponencially, while we enjoy for subjectively longer?
Do you really play Mario Kart thousands of times because you love repeating the same thing? Or do you love it because you have a finer eye for small detail than the new FF player, and so are noticing new novelty each time you play? I know I can watch “King Kong” or “Halloween” over and over again partly because I notice something new each time I watch those films.
That being said, I think a proper fun theory would probably have some sort of error bars around the level of boredom that is acceptable. In other words a creature that gets bored x% less easily than the median human is might still be a worthwhile creature, but creating a creature x+1% less easily bored would be bad (unless such a creature is instrumentally useful, obviously).
If we’re defining “novelty” such that it encompasses literally watching the same movie over and over again, then maybe it’s time to step back and consider whether we need a new word, since we’re moving so far away from the intuitive definition of “novelty”.
Another question came to my mind while thinking about this today. How often do you play Mario Kart alone vs. with friends? Adding social interaction to the game vastly increases its complexity. Probably part of the reason it’s more enduring than the FF games is that most of those games are single player, so the complexity is limited by your inability to play against other humans. Good multiplayer games are probably so replayable partly because they are venues for social interaction, which is a very, very complex form of novelty.