Design a game where human has advantage over computer

[RainDreamer]

4 minutes ago, moogoob said:

So I suppose the real question isn't "can a game be designed that a human will always have an advantage over a computer", but rather "at what point does a computer cease to be a computer and become a true intelligence?"

It is a good question, but probably deserve it own thread. Also, by that point it is moot to wonder whether we can create a game with advantage for us, since they are no longer AI, but complex sentient beings that far surpass us in every way. It would be like asking if we can design a game where an ant has an advantage over a human, and we are the ant in this case.

[p1t1o]

11 minutes ago, moogoob said:

Our brains are just neurons - simple electrochemical switches.

...

So I suppose the real question isn't "can a game be designed that a human will always have an advantage over a computer", but rather "at what point does a computer cease to be a computer and become a true intelligence?"

Neurons works very differently from transistors, the words "simple" and "switch" would make a neuroscientist shudder ("electrochemical" I think is ok ). For one (of many) thing, data storage is entirely integrated with processing, as in residing within the same hardware, then there's all the stuff we cannot fathom yet (Dreams? Sleep? SRSLY WTF?). I'm not sure if it makes any difference to your point but comparing brains and (current) CPUs is extremely problematic.

The second point I cannot answer, other than it clearly isn't simply a case of raw complexity or clock speed, but I can say that if they DID achieve true intelligence, THEN I would be happy saying that a spanner is better at tightening bolts...

 

 

2 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

...that far surpass us in every way.

I don't think that is necessarily a given, possibly, in time, but I wouldn't assume that the sci-fi version matches the RL version.

Uuh, also, I reckon ants can beat humans at sandcastles.

Edited April 11, 2016 by p1t1o

[moogoob]

1 minute ago, p1t1o said:

Neurons works very differently from transistors, the words "simple" and "switch" would make a neuroscientist shudder ("electrochemical" I think is ok ). For one (of many) thing, data storage is entirely integrated with processing, as in residing within the same hardware, then there's all the stuff we cannot fathom yet (Dreams? Sleep? SRSLY WTF?). I'm not sure if it makes any difference to your point but comparing brains and (current) CPUs is extremely problematic.

The second point I cannot answer, other than it clearly isn't simply a case of raw complexity or clock speed, but I can say that if they DID achieve true intelligence, THEN I would be happy saying that a spanner is better at tightening bolts...

Good point - the analogy was a gross simplification (I also know a lot more about computers than brains, which isn't saying much). I think the answer of "sheer complexity" sums it up - perhaps it might be better to think of each neuron as its own embedded system on a chip, so to speak.

However, a good portion of computer science is about assuming where increased computational capability will take the theory. Assuming an arbitrary size of processor and storage, is there any reason (other than as-yet-unproven connections between neuroscience and quantum computing) a digital, electronic computer can't be intelligent?

(And I'm sorry I keep bringing up the Turing test but as it's one of the best philosophical questions regarding both the brain and computers, it keeps its relevancy, IMO.)

[p1t1o]

1 minute ago, moogoob said:

Good point - the analogy was a gross simplification (I also know a lot more about computers than brains, which isn't saying much). I think the answer of "sheer complexity" sums it up - perhaps it might be better to think of each neuron as its own embedded system on a chip, so to speak.

However, a good portion of computer science is about assuming where increased computational capability will take the theory. Assuming an arbitrary size of processor and storage, is there any reason (other than as-yet-unproven connections between neuroscience and quantum computing) a digital, electronic computer can't be intelligent?

(And I'm sorry I keep bringing up the Turing test but as it's one of the best philosophical questions regarding both the brain and computers, it keeps its relevancy, IMO.)

Before we get booted to a seperate thread - 

I certainly can't think of any reason why an artificial processor (of certain as-yet-unknown properties) cannot achieve true intelligence/sentience, I don't think it will be the result of reaching some raw computational speed threshold, but who knows.

On the other hand, I'm at a complete loss as to why our brains *are* capable of it. I think there's a few more decades/centuries of advancement needed there 

As far as I know (which isn't quite state-of-the-art, so no guarantees) the quantum connection to brains is non-existent, we are not quantum computers.

[moogoob]

5 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Before we get booted to a seperate thread - 

I certainly can't think of any reason why an artificial processor (of certain as-yet-unknown properties) cannot achieve true intelligence/sentience, I don't think it will be the result of reaching some raw computational speed threshold, but who knows.

On the other hand, I'm at a complete loss as to why our brains *are* capable of it. I think there's a few more decades/centuries of advancement needed there 

As far as I know (which isn't quite state-of-the-art, so no guarantees) the quantum connection to brains is non-existent, we are not quantum computers.

The main reason I bring it up is that one of the main conditions for the OP is - "Design a game where humans always have an advantage over computers." If "the human brain is a computer" then it becomes "Design a game where computers always have an advantage over computers" and that's what we call a paradox.

[p1t1o]

Just now, moogoob said:

The main reason I bring it up is that one of the main conditions for the OP is - "Design a game where humans always have an advantage over computers." If "the human brain is a computer" then it becomes "Design a game where computers always have an advantage over computers" and that's what we call a paradox.

Thanks, I was having a hard enough time of this one before....

[moogoob]

3 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Thanks, I was having a hard enough time of this one before....

You're welcome.

(brain melting is a common side effect of talking to me about philosphical topics. If symptoms persist, I'd suggest taking a nap or playing a nice, relaxing game of KSP. )

[Shpaget]

3 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Totally open to the idea that I'm wrong about something, but i don't understand which part of what you wrote contradicts what I wrote?

The part where you say a programmer can only make a program as good at a certain task as the programmer himself. A programmer can make a program that will easily outperform the programmer.

You just gave an example where a person wrote a program that can beat you at a game (although "counting" is such a simple "game" that it might be an outlier case).

Well, yeah, that's what we're talking about. A human that is an average, or slightly above average chess player can write a chess software that can reliably defeat a grandmaster. I claim that same goes for any other game or task. Perhaps not in the present, but we're not talking about present, we are giving the computers (both hardware and software) unlimited development time.

Recently, they developed the AI that can defeat a top level Go player, something that was not possible a decade ago, mainly because the comparable chess softwares were using brute force to find the best moves, while that approach did not work for Go, since the number of possible games is so much larger. A different approach to programming was needed, however, nobody working on the Go software could beat the guy the software eventually won against.

[Nikolai]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

I can't disagree with anything you said, but I still can't quite shake the feeling that the question (however you word it) is a little...I dunno, a little "something".

If I had to hazard a guess, it's that you seem(*) to think of programming as essentially handing a series of simple instructions to a computer.  In a simplified sense, that's true.  But in a deeper sense, it's not the case that those instructions have to apply directly to a specific problem at hand; some of them can simply apply to solving particular kinds of problems in general, of which "grasping a game" is merely one distinct facet or instance.  Especially where "Problem Solved!" is a state that one can define, it's not necessary to specify to a computer the steps to get there; you just need to specify what matches that state, and possibly some metric of efficiency (e.g., "Use this one if getting to it requires fewer steps than others you're keeping track of").

In a similar way, "bolt tightened" is a state one can define, and we can find tools that will help us get there more effectively and/or efficiently than we can on our own, and even tools for which individual human skill at bolt-tightening is kind of irrelevant.  Humans are needed in the pipeline of tasks for tightening a bolt, but the skill with which any individual along the way can tighten a bolt need not even enter consideration.  (I trust you can also see that "A particular bolt-tightening human will only be able to get the bolt so tight, until another human who's better at bolt-tightening comes along" is rather misleading, given the state of the art with respect to bolt-tightening tools.)

Perhaps you think that a programmer is needed to weed out "good" results from "bad", but even that's not the case.  If your rules for determining "goodness" are simple (e.g., computing time), the programmer doesn't even have to be particularly skilled to create an algorithm-generating program that will make the best possible algorithm, which will not be beaten ever (even by later programmers with more skill at programming, or more skill at the game in question).

---

(*) Based on your expressed notions of "grasping" a game, and how programming skill applies to that.

[Kerbart]

Doh. Why didn't I think of this earlier. One of my favorite board games! "Diplomacy"

If we ever develop an AI that can beat us at a game where backstabbing is elevated to an art, we'd have to get worried, really worried...

[pincushionman]

5 hours ago, cantab said:

<xkcd comic>…

I love how beer pong (and I've seen video of the robot, it's pretty impressive) is identified in there, especially because on of the defining "features" (it's in the name, after all) of the game is to deliberately sabotage the player's ability.

[Tw1]

Must it be a board, or logic game? I could definitely beat a computer in tennis. 

"Forty-love. You're not going to get anywhere if you don’t hit the ball."

No hands, no legs... Humans have quite the advantage here.. 

[moogoob]

1 hour ago, Tw1 said:

Must it be a board, or logic game? I could definitely beat a computer in tennis. 

"Forty-love. You're not going to get anywhere if you don’t hit the ball."

No hands, no legs... Humans have quite the advantage here.. 

On an even playing field, in which the computer can manufacture a body - I'd think the computer (or the computers' tennis bot) could beat you in tennis.

[RainDreamer]

The computer may challenge you to a game of tennis....on Wii.

[Bill Phil]

Yeah. It's called cleverbot.

[InterCity]

From my limited experience with the way AIs think... 

I can't recommend you an exact game, but anything that requires a lot of creativity should do the job. Minecraft would be great, but there's no real objective there. Strategy games might work as well, if you don't grant the AI the ability to see through fog of war. A human can pull off an unexpected shenanigan. Of course, you'll need a human who's up to the task of thinking out of the box, but still...

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by InterCity
Typo

[WinkAllKerb'']

On 13/4/2016 at 1:18 AM, Bill Phil said:

Yeah. It's called cleverbot.

oh ?????

-----------------------------------------

i Multithread identities faster than ya ? i superhtread boredom faster than ya ?
how old are ya ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
how many childs ? such wow much lolz
any way you suck at guessing gnagnagna ; ) xDR
Well prolly one of my best friend, i rarely get bored thcit tchat with ...
CleverPeek & KimBot way to say anyway ; )

Beings are beings. .... many human are not whµman %%

Edited April 20, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[monstah]

On 13/04/2016 at 8:18 PM, Bill Phil said:

Yeah. It's called cleverbot.

 

11 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

oh ?????

-----------------------------------------

i Multithread identities faster than ya ? i superhtread boredom faster than ya ?
how old are ya ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
how many childs ? such wow much lolz
any way you suck at guessing gnagnagna ; ) xDR
Well prolly one of my best friend, i rarely get bored thcit tchat with ...
CleverPeek & KimBot way to say anyway ; )

Beings are beings. .... many human are not whµman %%

The Chatterbot hath spoken!  

[KAL 9000]

On April 11, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Shpaget said:

That is entirely wrong.

I assure you I am not a programmer of any sort, but I am 100% sure I can make a program that can count much much faster and more accurately than I can, and I am quite good at counting. I've been doing it since I was a kid.

In a game of counting, I stand no chance against a program written by a layman.

Yes. The counting program requested (in Python) :

forever = 0;

count = 1;

while forever == 0 :

print(count);

count = count + 1;

 

[kerbiloid]

Fallout.
Some computers you can hack, others you can shoot.

Colobot/ceebot.

[Nikolai]

16 hours ago, KAL 9000 said:

Yes. The counting program requested (in Python) :

forever = 0;

count = 1;

while forever == 0 :

print(count);

count = count + 1;

 

Nit-pickiness: Python doesn't need semi-colons, and you could eliminate the need for the "forever" variable by simply using "True" as the condition of your while loop ("while True:").

[Diazo]

Going back to the original question about a game where humans mechanically have an advantage over computers, the only way I see to do it is with randomness in the rules. I'm not talking about a RNG giving random results, I'm talking about the rules themselves changing.

A computer can simply process more data faster then a human. As long as the rules being played under are static, the computer is going to have an advantage. You have to change the rules so that the computers advantage in data processing is not applicable.

I'm not sure you can actually do this in a computer game. Sure, you could design "unknowns" into the game, but you'd have to program the various counters in ahead of time if the player is going to be able to use them, so the computer already knows the counters and it can figure out which counter to apply.

D.

[RainDreamer]

Well, it doesn't even have to be a computer game, simply a game that the computer is able to play along with the human player, so even a verbal or visual game where a computer with microphone/camera can participate works. But hmm, I don't know what kind of game with evolving rules like that will be like... Maybe...if creating art is a game, for example. Though computer are indeed capable of creating catchy tune and music based on data analyzed from popular songs, when throw against a panel of judges with a smaller sample, it might get a bit more confused.

[HebaruSan]

5 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

But hmm, I don't know what kind of game with evolving rules like that will be like... 

I believe this was mentioned once previously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game)#Adding_rules

There's also one where players vote on the rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic