Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

ai.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 300 posts

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#91

Post by californiadreem »

mistermann wrote: post #72
californiadreem wrote: post #60

You know, I feel privileged (in an epistemologically doubtful way) that I once lived in a world where I could have confidence that I wasn't being fundamentally deceived by literal dei ex machina. I've understood for the last decade that this faith was on borrowed time as we bridged closer to overt technophrenia, but it's harrowing to be a witness to it. I can't help but wonder at what point I will inhabit a world ind…

Well....do you think that the reality shown to us on TV is even a remotely accurate representation of reality itself? And has this caused you any substantial psychological unease? Silicon based AI isn't the only form of AI that can get up to mischief.

Humans deceiving humans via technology is a tale as old as time. Plato imagined human torch-bearers manipulating those chained in the cave. He didn't imagine machines doing it autonomously.

Incarnate technology deceiving humans is a different domain entirely. Human motivations are ultimately comprehensible by other humans.

But what do I know of the motivations of (for example) the Bible? What happens when the living incarnation of a holy text can literally speak for itself? Or when the average believer thinks it can?

Ultimately this may all amount to the same status quo, but seeing what cognitive distortions have come along with literacy, newspapers, radio, TV, and now the Internet, I have to continually ask, will I personally be able to maintain skepticism when the full brunt of an AI and its organs is suggesting faith otherwise?

You can call me an alarmist or melodramatic if you wish, but it should give everyone pause that the delusions of paranoid schizophrenics from the late 20th century are now basically indistinguishable from emerging popular technologies and their downstream effects.

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#92

Post by ghaff »

bee_rider wrote: post #78
MichaelCollins wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, Risk is one of the few board games worth playing specifically because it's so engaging. Most of my friends who are "into boardgames" tell me that Risk is a terrible game because it starts fights. But the games they want to play bore me to tears. (I can't even read the manual for Settlers of Catan without dying of boredom, but from what you say maybe I should give it another try.)

From what I’ve seen, the main complaint from board game enthusiasts about Risk is that the dice rolling is too random (I don’t really agree with this, the whole point of the game is to control your level of risk, there it is right in the name, so if your plan hinges on good rolls it is just a bad plan. But I digress). I think most people who are really into board games must have a general ability to separate in game…

Risk was a preferred game both while I was in school and for some time afterwards in our ski house, etc. It definitely appealed to people who weren't broadly into board games--and certainly not hardcore war games.

I always liked it. There are some potentially annoying dynamics like how cards dominate so much in the end game and basically force you to go for it at some point.

I've played Catan on a tablet. It's OK but I seem to keep coming back most to Carcassonne for that general class of game.

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#93

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

spencerflem wrote: post #70
MichaelCollins wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, Risk is one of the few board games worth playing specifically because it's so engaging. Most of my friends who are "into boardgames" tell me that Risk is a terrible game because it starts fights. But the games they want to play bore me to tears. (I can't even read the manual for Settlers of Catan without dying of boredom, but from what you say maybe I should give it another try.)

I'm definitely one of those "into boardgames" people so take this all with a grain of salt :p - Risk is definitely a great game and imo people who are into games and don't want to play are saying that because it's 1. long & 2. they've already played it enough to have mostly figured out the strategy Diplomacy is very good and like risk it has very simple rules, grand stakes of world domination, and actual direct confl…

>be a crippled angry husk for the next month, and then lose.

Do people resign in diplomacy? Or do you stick around to try to punish the player who backstabbed you?

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#95

Post by mistermann »

californiadreem wrote: post #91
mistermann wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well....do you think that the reality shown to us on TV is even a remotely accurate representation of reality itself? And has this caused you any substantial psychological unease? Silicon based AI isn't the only form of AI that can get up to mischief.

Humans deceiving humans via technology is a tale as old as time. Plato imagined human torch-bearers manipulating those chained in the cave. He didn't imagine machines doing it autonomously. Incarnate technology deceiving humans is a different domain entirely. Human motivations are ultimately comprehensible by other humans. But what do I know of the motivations of (for example) the Bible? What happens when the living…

> Humans deceiving humans via technology is a tale as old as time. Plato imagined human torch-bearers manipulating those chained in the cave. He didn't imagine machines doing it autonomously.

And despite a substantial subset of the population knowing this, we continue to do nothing to address it - if anything, more people are devoted to giving people even more powers to deceive at massive scale.

> Incarnate technology deceiving humans is a different domain entirely. Human motivations are ultimately comprehensible by other humans.

Whether they are accurately comprehensible is another matter though.

> But what do I know of the motivations of (for example) the Bible? What happens when the living incarnation of a holy text can literally speak for itself? Or when the average believer thinks it can?

Likely: mostly nothing. Thus, the subconscious mind steps in and generates reality to fill the void.

> Ultimately this may all amount to the same status quo, but seeing what cognitive distortions have come along with literacy, newspapers, radio, TV, and now the Internet, I have to continually ask, will I personally be able to maintain skepticism when the full brunt of an AI and its organs is suggesting faith otherwise?

Do the laws of physics prevent you?

If not, then what? And, have you inquired into there is any pre-existing methodologies for dealing with this phenomenon?

> You can call me an alarmist or melodramatic if you wish, but it should give everyone pause that the delusions of paranoid schizophrenics from the late 20th century are now basically indistinguishable from emerging popular technologies and their downstream effects.

I am far more worried about the delusions of Normies, as they are 95%+ of society and are for the most part "driving the bus", whereas schizophrenics account for a small percentage, and tend to not be assigned many responsibilities.

One of us is more correct than the other - how might we go about accurately determining which of us that is?

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#96

Post by 1123581321 »

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #84
MichaelCollins wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, Risk is one of the few board games worth playing specifically because it's so engaging. Most of my friends who are "into boardgames" tell me that Risk is a terrible game because it starts fights. But the games they want to play bore me to tears. (I can't even read the manual for Settlers of Catan without dying of boredom, but from what you say maybe I should give it another try.)

I can't stand Risk because Risk rewards inactivity. It is almost never optimal in Risk to attack another player (although limited skirmishes are fine), because even a successful assault will badly damage your own forces leaving you vulnerable. The way to win Risk is to convince other players to attack each other and then clean up in the aftermath. This is ok for players that are new to the game because they'll actual…

This is meta dependent, too, though. If you are not attacking and also not sending the right signals to the board, you might be quickly carved up by the other players jockeying for 12 territories.

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#97

Post by gcanyon »

bee_rider wrote: post #17
tuzongyu wrote: post #2

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade9097 Abstract: Despite much progress in training AI systems to imitate human language, building agents that use language to communicate intentionally with humans in interactive environments remains a major challenge. We introduce CICERO, the first AI agent to achieve human-level performance in Diplomacy, a strategy game involving both cooperation and competition that emp…

> Cicero participated anonymously in 40 games of Diplomacy in a “blitz” league on webDiplomacy.net > Cicero ranked in the top 10% of participants who played more than one game and 2 nd out of 19 participants in the league that played 5 or more games. > As part of the league, Cicero participated in an 8-game tournament involving 21 participants, 6 of whom played at least 5 games. Participants could play a maximum of 6…

There's an interesting question of "how much do the literal best humans suck at this?" For example, in chess Magnus Carlsen might be able to beat Stockfish given a handicap of just a pawn or two. An even better computer player than Stockfish might give up three or more pawns, but even a perfect player would likely lose to Carlsen if giving up a rook. -- I'm making this up, I don't think anyone knows the real values, but as far as I know no one is remotely projecting that perfect play could overcome e.g. a queen handicap.

Similarly, in Go it seems unlikely that perfect play could overcome a nine-stone handicap (again, I could be wrong, I'm not remotely a dan-level player).

All to say, it seems likely that Diplomacy is a game where the difference between "the best human play" and "the best possible play" is much larger than either Go or Chess.

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#98

Post by munk-a »

ghaff wrote: post #57
LanceH wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Risk, you're just fighting over limited resources. You largely wage these battles on your own. There is no real negotiation between players, other than an implicit, passing agreement when you don't provoke someone by attacking them. Diplomacy, however, you can't manage any attacks by yourself. You will either depend on someone helping you with an attack/defense, or you will have to trust that someone doesn't attac…

>There is no real negotiation between players, other than an implicit, passing agreement when you don't provoke someone by attacking them. It depends how you play. I've seen people make treaties for all sorts of things for various durations, e.g. don't attack from Country X into Country Y and I won't attack across that border either.

Binding or non-binding treaties? Because in diplomacy everyone is always making non-binding treaties, promises and threats - and that's where the betrayal comes in. I have heard of some people using binding treaties in diplomacy (i.e. three turn ceasefire between France and Prussia) but that has always struck me as a terrible idea because you're shifting moves into the open and things get boring and cliquish.

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#99

Post by zemvpferreira »

wolverine876 wrote: post #79
bpodgursky wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, "largely" honest, until the critical moment when you stab to take 18 supply centers to win the game. You don't win Diplomacy by staying honest, you win by choosing the right moment to make the move and burn that trust. It's the 5% dishonesty that matters.

It's interesting and I think significant that people are uncomfortable with positive values, such as honesty, doing good for others, responsibility to others, right (not wrong), etc. We shoot them down, similar to how people instinctively cut off a conversation going in an uncomfortable direction, often without even realizing it. I can't attribute that the parent - I don't know the individual - but I expected a choru…

It's perfectly reasonable to advise against good values in a game that's won by people who strategically abandon theirs. If you want to win, that's the strategy to follow.

Not necessarily a lesson for life unless you view life as a finite game to be won. But in that case, it's probably the best strategy as well.

I don't view life like that and I'm guessing you don't as well, but I'd advise anyone to be cautious of their interactions with people who play to win.

Re: CICERO: An AI agent that negotiates, persuades, and cooperates with people

#100

Post by ghaff »

munk-a wrote: post #98
ghaff wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no real negotiation between players, other than an implicit, passing agreement when you don't provoke someone by attacking them. It depends how you play. I've seen people make treaties for all sorts of things for various durations, e.g. don't attack from Country X into Country Y and I won't attack across that border either.

Binding or non-binding treaties? Because in diplomacy everyone is always making non-binding treaties, promises and threats - and that's where the betrayal comes in. I have heard of some people using binding treaties in diplomacy (i.e. three turn ceasefire between France and Prussia) but that has always struck me as a terrible idea because you're shifting moves into the open and things get boring and cliquish.

I think I've played both ways (or at least played in a group where people didn't break treaties even if they could) but it's been years.
Post reply on HN