Think about what happens in the dataset of human games where such conversations take place. It probably adds more uncertainty to the predicted actions of players who say these things.
I mean, what would you do if you saw such messages in a game you’re playing? Probably assume they’re mentally unstable and adjust accordingly.
Or: What if it finds out that all the humans are doing a strategy of “interrogate everyone to find out who the bot is, then gang up on the bot.” How does it react?
It was reported that high level diplomacy players have a different game-theoretical situation, because they all know eachother by (user)name. So if DiplomacyGrandmaster69 goes up against TheDiplomancer, they know their games will be publicly streamed, and the other high level players will see how honest they really are. Whereas casual players are playing a single-shot prisoner’s dilemma, the pros are playing an iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and that makes a difference.
I wonder what would happen if CICERO were placed in repeated 6-human-one-AI showmatches where everyone know which one was the AI. How would it fair?
I can’t remember the exact source, but I believe that CICERO was optimized with the expectation of anonymity. In fact, all players in the games CICERO played were anonymous. CICERO was optimized with the assumption that other players would have no knowledge of its past history (and hence expected behavior). Versions of CICERO that were optimized with the assumption that other players would treat it according to its past history were explicitly noted as being more vindictive.
Now that I think about it, this probably gave CICERO a significant advantage. Most human games are played with player names visible. Anonymous play is thus a deviation from the standard metagame. The Meta team noted that players played more vindictively than optimal and that CICERO got an advantage for being less vindictive. Since these were top players, it implies that the human players simply didn’t fully adjust to the anonymous format. I don’t recall any CICERO games with public names in the paper; maybe the results were less impressive?
I wonder how it would update its strategies if you negotiated in an unorthodox way:
“If you help me win, I will donate £5000 across various high-impact charities”
“If you don’t help me win, I will kill somebody”
Think about what happens in the dataset of human games where such conversations take place. It probably adds more uncertainty to the predicted actions of players who say these things.
I mean, what would you do if you saw such messages in a game you’re playing? Probably assume they’re mentally unstable and adjust accordingly.
Or: What if it finds out that all the humans are doing a strategy of “interrogate everyone to find out who the bot is, then gang up on the bot.” How does it react?
It was reported that high level diplomacy players have a different game-theoretical situation, because they all know eachother by (user)name. So if DiplomacyGrandmaster69 goes up against TheDiplomancer, they know their games will be publicly streamed, and the other high level players will see how honest they really are. Whereas casual players are playing a single-shot prisoner’s dilemma, the pros are playing an iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and that makes a difference.
I wonder what would happen if CICERO were placed in repeated 6-human-one-AI showmatches where everyone know which one was the AI. How would it fair?
I can’t remember the exact source, but I believe that CICERO was optimized with the expectation of anonymity. In fact, all players in the games CICERO played were anonymous. CICERO was optimized with the assumption that other players would have no knowledge of its past history (and hence expected behavior). Versions of CICERO that were optimized with the assumption that other players would treat it according to its past history were explicitly noted as being more vindictive.
Now that I think about it, this probably gave CICERO a significant advantage. Most human games are played with player names visible. Anonymous play is thus a deviation from the standard metagame. The Meta team noted that players played more vindictively than optimal and that CICERO got an advantage for being less vindictive. Since these were top players, it implies that the human players simply didn’t fully adjust to the anonymous format. I don’t recall any CICERO games with public names in the paper; maybe the results were less impressive?