From: Michael Roy Ames (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 15:14:26 MST
Gordon Worley wrote (with snippage):
> If you're going to say "these are just games and you should not think
> about them in relation to anything" then you might as well not have
> any games played at all.
Indeed. That is exactly the opposite of my suggestion, which is: if
competitive games are to be taught, they must be taught within a wider
> Worse yet, what if it learns how to be deceptive while playing games.
Yes, what if? This issue shares similar difficulties to that of
competition, and I would suggest similar solutions. Deception is a
useful technique is certain situations, as long as it is used as a
subgoal in service of a larger positive-sum goal - such as the poker
example. As with competitiveness, deception should be explained and
taught only when the Seed AI can understand its utility in the larger
> There is far more to games than winning and losing. If that were all
> there were we could probably have a seed AI play games, but games are
> much deeper than you seem to be thinking.
Games can be as 'shallow' or as 'deep' as you want to make them. I am
not currently addressing the depth of games in this thread, but rather
the idea of competition within games as part of the educational process.
Michael Roy Ames
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT