From: Gordon Worley (redbird@rbisland.cx)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 08:58:52 MST
On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 01:54 PM, Michael Roy Ames wrote:
> Last month in the #sl4 chat channel, there was a discussion about
> competitive games and whether we should teach a seed AI, or Friendly
> Super Intelligence (FSI), about playing them. One group was arguing
> that we should not teach zero-sum, or competitive, games at all.
> Another group thought it would be useful to do so. I found myself
> sympathizing with both viewpoints during the discussion, but have later
> come down firmly on the 'openness' side of the argument. Here are some
> thoughts.
Whether we need to play games or not is still at question. It might be
possible to design games that avoid competition and conflict, or design
games where the objective is to avoid conflict, but this is a big
stretch for a human (human sports/games are all competitive because
there's no evolutionary need for sports that don't help expose the
status of potential mates). So, even assuming we can develop a game
free of conflict (I think we can, but it's going to take a hell of a
lot of work and a proof of noncompetitiveness), it's still not clear
that a seed AI should be playing games at all. A seed AI certainly
needs some kind of training, but I'm not sure that sports/games as we
think of them are going to be the best method.
-- Gordon Worley "You're not going crazy ... http://www.rbisland.cx/ you're going sane ... in a redbird@rbisland.cx crazy world!" PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --The Tick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT