A few, but overall it doesn’t change very much.
Ah, I see. All of your explanations led to 1 thing: imperfect information. Fogged Markov tiles or coin-like tokens are ways to confuse AI and force it to ramp up the brute power exponentially without much effort from the puzzler &/or much effect in game. And since it doesn’t know the info, it can’t accurately calculate the value of that info, that’s why AI sucks at scouting.
Coincidently, I’ve already invented a board game that incorporates imperfect info to beat AI back in 2016. I guess I’d need to put some more into it.
I have to say, appropriate user name at that.
No, I’m not against that trading money for valuable stuffs part. And while the game can be digital, it does not hurt to have some physical sets for the human elements.
OK here’s an upvote for you ;) Nevertheless, I do think that selling expansion sets is an exploitative way to milk money. Maybe I’m biased by my wanting to protect the environment & avoid too much waste...
Of course it’s to each their own, but while some children like those games, it doesn’t mean they are great. Both Cranium & TP’s scores on BGG are really low, indicating the majority of people don’t like that approach. Our 2nd biggest goal is to make the game appealing to the population.
Hmm. Well, anything physical can be a challenge to AI, since we don’t have many real-life machines playing games physically. While technically the idea rings true, my question didn’t intend to explore much of this approach :)
I think this approach tries to use puns to confuse AI… but it’ll get old quickly for humans. Once the card is answered, it can no longer be of much value next times.
Thanks a bunch Maxim! I remember you in my hypothetical “drop all water on Earth” question—so, a usually late guy but always arrives with excellent answers :)
1 of the main differences between board & card games that I can discern is that 1 has perfect info, as you pointed out, the other not. Thus if we integrate imperfect info into a board game, can programmers just combine the 2 algorithms to solve it, or they will have to find another approach?
Unlike the Earth water question, I have some difficulties understanding the technical terms fully:
I don’t really know SC2 but played Civ4, so by ‘scouting’ did you mean fogbusting? And the cost is to spend a unit to do it? What does it have to do with Markov property? Is fogbusting even possible in a real life board game?
Lengthy gameplay, IMHO, is bad when our 2nd goal is to attract people. Especially in this age of distraction, where youngsters can’t concentrate for 20 minutes.
I learnt in a Crash course that computer science is essentially many layers of abstracting, so I’m a bit surprised when it turns out that AIs can’t see the obvious 101 pigeons in 100 holes. Can we conclude that what separate us humans from AIs is that ability of insight? Also, I’m curious as to how you’d apply this last element in a real game example.
BTW, what is RL? Real-life? :)
Video games has some advantages regarding AI over board games. While boards are restricted by real life physics & amount of materials (1 can’t have 9 pawns in chess!), software offers virtually endless options & things to add. The amount of variations & positions are also tremendous, thus brute force is inefficient. The examples you linked show that. Therefore, it is in board games that we have to apply our ingenious the most to fuck those AIs up.
Er… I’m not sure I follow. In the sentence, if the word “you” means “the individual me” then no, I don’t think the AI box ex is a game. It’s merely a thought experiment, and actually a pretty stupid one. If a box is designed to completely separate an AI from the real world then allowing it to interact with outside personnel destroys the purpose of the box in the 1st place. It’s about as much a game to me as Roko’s basilisk.
If the word “you” mean “people in general” then no, unsolved AI problems are complicated and boring to the population. Something must be fun for people to consider it a game. Just because a part of LWers are obsessed with AI doesn’t mean everyone is, too.
Tks Kaj. I can see that this designer tried to fuck AIs up by the brute force way, which is not efficient and, well, not elegant. The game also kind of suffers from the same problem as Esperanto, that is it’s way too “eurocentric”.
Those summaries from the site sound dubious.
On average there are over 17,000 possible moves compared to about 30 for chess; this significantly limits how deep computers can think, but does not seem to affect humans.
Of course that affects humans. This is like sacrificing most of your 2nd goal to get a tiny little bit ahead on your 1st goal.
End game databases are not helpful since a game can end with all pieces still on the board.
Absurd. Many strategy/abstract games, even chess, can end with all pieces alive.
Research papers on Arimaa suggest it is more of a strategic and positional game with less emphasis on tactics.
Reviews I read suggest otherwise. Moreover, the game claims that it’s among the highest rated on BGG. Following the link reveals that it’s down in the 40ish or 50ish ranks, below Go, Xiangqi, Shogi, and even Chess, which it aspires to improve from.
Besides, there’s a pattern I noticed from reading the reviews. Those high scores for Animaa usually come from earlier years, 2000s. Conversely, the recent ones are dominated by negative views. In them we can see those repeated complaints about slow pace, boring feel and stripping off of chess’ aesthetics...
So, I’d argue that Animaa isn’t really an attempt to do what I asked in the question. It went solely for the 1st goal while completely ignoring the 2nd goal, which weigh about 40-45% of importance IMO. After all, the human element is just something we’re having an edge over AIs. And what is a game if it doesn’t have people playing??
Thanks for letting me know about yet another of his projects. JG has an interesting style of presentation, I enjoyed many of his Crash course episodes. Glad that we now have 1 more similarity :)
That said, it seems like the things he reviews in his podcasts are a bit too wide and too spontaneous. My goal for the proposed system is that it get aggregated reviews on only stuffs that help us improve, thus the chosen words of theory, technique, method, model/modus… You know, things that many LWers are crazy about.
I guess you guys running the site like monochrome. While it’s ok enough to differentiate on the homepage, where blog titles are big and bold, I doubt using that scheme will be effective with hover.
Besides, that will requires readers to reach out and move their mouse over the link for 1 second, squint for a while to find whether it’s grey or black, and then move it out and wait another 1 second for the preview to go off; in contrast to just glance at the circle icon to find out. No-brainer IMO.
Has anyone suggested it yet? I think LW should have a system to notice users whether they’ve read a linked article or not when they’re reading inside another. That’s a basic & universal need, yet I’m surprised it’s not implemented. On other sites, it’s simply the link’s color: blue if unread, violet if read. If you guys decide to opt for a more sophisticated system, then I propose using 8 rainbow colors: black means the user hasn’t read it, red indicates once, orange twice… purple 7 times or more. In case you’re worried the various long link shades may distract people, then just apply them to that circle indication at the end of the link. You could make it bigger and bold for readers to distinguish the colors.
Yeah, I did have that experience too. But come to think of it, his explanation in the video sounds counter-intuitive for AC & DC. With the bulb connected to the mains via a wire (even though it’s the neutral line and that line is severed) like in the better part of the video, as long as the mains is AC the bulb will always at least dim...
TBH I’m a bit more confused :)
Holy cow, I’ve just read to the “poynty” part in his work. Now I have a vague sense of why Tesla wanted to put wireless electricity down into every household. And even Feynmann was afraid of explaining the truth because of its complexity/difficulty.
I still have not achieved a breakthrough. See, when we broadcast a wave, say radio, then it will propagate into space and will be lost forever. Now as per your words, an AC flow in a wire will radiate energy outward ⇒ this means a lot of energy is lost all the time. Since the wattage in a wire is a constant, we lose a big and constant amount of energy no matter what we do. That seems not to be the case in real life.
Furthermore, if we accept that electrical energy actually flows in the field around the line, then why do we even need outlets and sockets? Just put a device near the wire, like those cordless chargers. Besides, electric thieves can be easy since almost everyone can put a specialized stealing device near a public line.