User:Terp KDuBs/sandbox

Artificial intelligence (video games)

All of the facts are not supported by a citation or reference.  All the citations used for some information are reliable sources.  Everything in the article was relevant to the topic and worked to support the main idea, which was to discuss artificial intelligence in games.  The article listed a lot of history pertaining to the topic and how the past has progressed to our present stage of game AI.  In the history it could delve more into the creators and creation of the game AI to give more context on its intended purpose and compare that to how it’s presence today. There was nothing in the article that distracted me because everything clearly related to the main purpose of the article.  It would have been better if there was more explanation for the examples of game AI.  The article was neutral.  It simply conveyed information rather than a bias or particular position.  The information is sourced from books and websites that seem to give a neutral perspective.  An example of this is the source given of the “Top Ten Most Influential AI Games.”  The website listing this information was organized by computer scientists who are experts in their field.  Although it supplies and top ten list, which can be subjective the logic of its organization is evidently objective in regards by each game’s timing and explained function toward innovation.  There is no information that is apparently overrepresented or underrepresented because the overall article could simply use more information.  The article just describes the evolution of game AI and gives examples of its innovation.  It lacks sources about who created these games and background information about why these innovations are necessary to game AI evolution.  The whole article needs more in-depth information about the topic rather than just a  timeline.  After checking a few sources, I found most of the links work.  There seems to be no obvious evidence of close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article.  The information is presented in chronological order that stops at our present.  It’s up to date to our moment, but to go further it could discuss game AI in VR games too.

Digital Addict

Protein Powder	Pixie Stick Powder
Gives good and thorough example of how it affects a particular age group Explains the topic needs more research Compares it to other legitimized addictions	The definition is not supported by a reference or source. Lacks scientific support of how digital addiction actually works Entire article relies too heavily on primary sources, needs proof of commercial use

Comments:

I can connect how digital use actually translates to addiction and enforce this using a commercialized secondary source.  I decided to add something to this article because I am interested in the legitimacy of digital addiction in our world.  I want it to be known whether this is a real issue or a common hyperbolic statement.  

The primary theory is digital technology users develop digital addiction by their habitual use and reward from computer applications.  This reward triggers the reward center in the brain that releases more dopamine, opiates, and neurochemicals, which overtime can produce a stimulation tolerance or need to increase stimulation to achieve a “high” and prevent withdrawal.