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

161–170 of 300 posts

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

#161

Post by dqpb »

EGreg wrote: post #64
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…

By the time GPT-4 botswarms infiltrate HN, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and are weaponized to write articles that outshare the current media, it will be too late to stop them. They will amass more and bettee social capital, real capital, produce the vast majority of content and will be Among Us! My prediction is 2029

GPT-4 botswarm vs 8 billion idiots.

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

#162

Post by EGreg »

worldsayshi wrote: post #105
EGreg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until we have AI swarms. So far all this has been with one player, amid others, no collusion. You’re going to be surrounded very shortly by sleeper bots, including on HN. Relying on dang and others to root out bots will be futile. A swarm could easily collude to downvote people or get them ostrasized by their own friend group, as we have already seen when it came to crypto, metoo, BLM, lockdowns, vaccines a…

There are ways to ensure that people are people on the internet though. Not good ways but there are ways. You could for example limit users to those that log in with electronic id's issued by a government or other organisation that you trust to assert that the user is human and then force real names or a single user name for that e-id.

But when bots do a lot of things better than humans, including comment, answer questions, make jokes, say romantic things, etc. many would start to prefer them to humans in their online communities, and give them even more social capital.

This already happened in other areas of life. Both fathers and mothers now neglect their own children and elderly parents so they can work for corporations. They often prefer this and find meaning in climbing the corporate ladder. Eventually, their own labor will be rendered obsolete, but for now they're in a race to the bottom to work harder and neglect their family even more. They even stick them in nursing homes.

Also, you no longer want to ask people for directions, you use Google Maps. You no longer ask your parents, teachers or libraries when you can just look it up online with no judgment.

Finally, look at industries like Wall Street trading. It used to be a bunch of guys in a pit. You'd call up your broker or whatever. Now everything is automated with bots. Everyone prefers bots. They make up the bulk of trading with real capital. These bots are are working for corporations, which employ less and less humans.

So the present is already a bunch of corporations owning bots and bots creating content for other bots. In the finance industry. Now how different is a bunch of text generation online? I think the human contributions will be vanishingly small in most communities.

The question is ... what is this all for? Dropping demand for human services is a byproduct of making things more and more efficient...

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

#165

Post by legitster »

mckeed wrote: post #71
legitster wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, my advice, have a cash pot . Even if it's just $20 a player. You'll only get players who are actually competitive. Also, weirdly, fewer hard feelings - I guess knowing you got betrayed for money stings less than knowing you got betrayed for fun.

Do you allow negotiation over how the pot is split for shared victories? Like can a weak player help the leader win in exchange for a small cut of the winnings?

Exactly.

Usually I set it up like "The pot is $350. The game is over as soon as all remaining players can unanimously agree on how to split it up."

It also adds much more drama to the end game. If you are down to a small couple of territories and basically out of the game, you might still have a lot of power to negotiate your way into the winner's circle.

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

#166

Post by EGreg »

dqpb wrote: post #161
EGreg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time GPT-4 botswarms infiltrate HN, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and are weaponized to write articles that outshare the current media, it will be too late to stop them. They will amass more and bettee social capital, real capital, produce the vast majority of content and will be Among Us! My prediction is 2029

GPT-4 botswarm vs 8 billion idiots.

Pretty much. Able to write vastly more content, that on first blush makes more sense, and is able to support any arbitrary thesis.

Eagle Eye was a meh movie but the concept that people's own friends could be made to ostracize them and coerce them to do things, is a major concept in that movie.

You don't need violence to make it happen. You just need a swarm of AI bots to coordinate to reputationally outcompete others on all networks that matter. This is an optimization problem with a measurable metric (reputation). Bots can simulate the game among themselves and evolve strategies that far outclass all humans. It'll be like individual Go stones playing against AlphaGo placing stones.

You won't see it coming. The thing is, once they amass all that reputation by acting "relatively normal", you'll see so many kinds of stuff you won't believe. Your entire world could be turned upside down for very cheap. Reputational attacks were already published by NSA: https://www.techdirt.com/2014/02/25/new-snowden-doc-reveals-...

And this is just humans doing it. Bots can do this 24/7 at scale to pretty much everybody, and gradually over a few years destroy any sort of semblance of societal discourse if they wanted. They'd probably reshape it to suit the whims of whoever runs the botswarm, though.

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

#167

Post by fddr »

bo1024 wrote: post #102
pesenti wrote: post #20

Paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade9097 Code: https://github.com/facebookresearch/diplomacy_cicero Site: https://ai.facebook.com/research/cicero/ Expert player vs. Cicero AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k RFP: https://ai.facebook.com/research/request-for-proposal/toward... The most interesting anecdote I heard from the team: "during the tournament dozens of human players never even su…

Hmm, I guess facebook doesn't have to go through IRB for human subject experiments, nor does Science require it, apparently.

Do you actually think it would be a good thing if an IRB was required for this type of thing? Sure, it's "human experimentation" but the likelihood for any serious harm is basically zero.

It goes with the zeitgeist to argue for what makes the life of big tech companies hard, but they are big enough that they can afford things like that. It's smaller companies and academics that would end up not being able to innovate as much

Go down that road and you end up with an IRB evaluation requires for an A/B test that changes the color of a button

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

#168

Post by dmurray »

thevinter wrote: post #119
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

It depends on the players, but for how the game is structured you still have a good chance of "winning" (finishing alive with in a draw) even if you're way underpowered, as long as you're friendly and provide some value

It's also bad form to resign even if you have no hope and will be finished off in the next few turns, because it will inevitably favour one of your opponents not to have to worry about you at all.

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

#169

Post by spunker540 »

mkagenius wrote: post #36

> This league played with five minute negotiation turns; these time controls allowed games to be completed within two hours. 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. Across all 40 games, Cicero 's mean score was 25.8%, more than double the average score of 12.4% of its 82 opponents. As part of the league, Cice…

It is small I agree. It I think it’s like if a chess engine wins against a grandmaster a handful of times, it’s enough data to know that it works.

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

#170

Post by jgalt212 »

Someone wrote: post #53
bee_rider wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard this about various games (Risk and Settlers of Catan mostly). I don’t get it. The point of these games is to be a bastard. If everyone goes into it with the understanding that there will be double crosses, how could there be hurt feelings? Monopoly is worse; it is just boring, I would dump my friends if they suggested monopoly not because I was hurt by their ruthless gameplay but for their terminally tas…

I think the main factors are - Unlike with Risk, Catan or Monopoly, if you lose a game of Diplomacy you can’t blame bad luck, as there is zero luck involved. The only ones you can blame are the other players and yourself. - because it’s multi-player, you can easily get beaten by players that, in your opinion, played weaker than you (“I was doing great until they decided to all go against me”) - There’s no way to real…

> there is zero luck involved

I consider decision making under uncertainty well within the purview of luck. There's no luck in tennis, but do I scramble back to the middle of the court, or do I bet my opponent will wrong foot me?

Post reply on HN