41–50 of 320 posts
Is there a well known strategy game where AI doesn't have better chances to win than a human? Is there possibly, math wise, that such games exist? I kind of dislike not having a chance when playing against bots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to hear your reasoning as to why you think that a human is especially good at dealing with uncertainty. My experience is the opposite.
True randomness doesn't drive better results for humans, due to some intrinsic humane qualities, but rather eliminates the advantage of large volume data access and processing of AI. Basically true randomness levels the playing field. Backgammon is a perfect example.
Maybe some randomness will help, but might not be enough.
My ideea is that bots can't win in the real world economy, no fund driven solely by algorithms can win more than funds driven by humans.
So if we can find a game modeled like the economy, where nothing is random but many things are uncertain, then it might be harder for the software to win.
> Like most people, late last year I watched the Queen's Gambit. That's a... bold statement.
>But I'm a smart guy (hi white male privilege)
It's amusing to see someone go mask off and call non-whites low IQ like that.
Interesting to see a shoutout to Gwern for his writeup on spaced repetition.
I'm curious: which part of that is interesting? Aside from Piotr Wozniak's writing, Gwern is the common coordination point for these techniques.
"Only about 10% of players ever gain more than 100 points, and only about 1% of players gain more than 200 rating points given years." This seems like a wild claim. On chess.com I've gone from 500 to ~1050 in a handful of months without any real study, just some light YouTube watching. 500->800 felt like all it took was learning a few openings and not blundering pieces. 800-1050 felt like it came mostly from getting…
Is there a well known strategy game where AI doesn't have better chances to win than a human? Is there possibly, math wise, that such games exist? I kind of dislike not having a chance when playing against bots.
I briefly scanned the article. I am not that impressed by the result. I thought that an average smart person and particularly someone with a scientific background could reach that resalt in one or two months. My experience. I played chess when I was between 13 and 16, at that time I was a good player but not a child prodigy, let's say one of the best players in my school. I have no idea of my ELO then, there was no i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say any game that includes a lot of uncertainty, subjectivity and random chance would mean that an AI would not usually have an edge over a human. Maybe games like diplomacy, magic the gathering, pandemic, Gloomhaven, maybe poker (?), backgammon (?) etc. On a sidenote, I think it’s interesting that we’re a point where it’s starting to get hard to come up with games that humans can beat AI at.
I would like to hear your reasoning as to why you think that a human is especially good at dealing with uncertainty. My experience is the opposite.
We can ask any successful CEO. Fortune 500 companies would use bots if that was possible.
Uncertainty doesn't equal randomness. Randomness is flipping a coin and asking you the result. Uncertainty is hiding the coin behind my back and asking you in which hand is it.
> Like most people, late last year I watched the Queen's Gambit. That's a... bold statement.
Not the only bold statement in the article. >But I'm a smart guy (hi white male privilege) It's amusing to see someone go mask off and call non-whites low IQ like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I kind of dislike not having a chance when playing against bots." Conjures an image of the astronaut with a gun meme... - Wait, playing games to win is a waste of time now? - It always was.
There's a difference between playing to win and being frustrated because your opponent can consistently steamroll you effortlessly without even giving you a chance to set your game up.
It’s a machine, it won’t feel smug about knowing it could beat me if it wanted to.
I’ve never really understood people who are competitive about board games and similar inside-the-box scenarios. (There’s a certain “Dwight Schrute” aspect to that mentality that’s hard to watch.) I like losing in games because there’s no real-world cost to trying out some idiot strategy.