If you’re vocally obstinate about not going along with its plan, can the dialogue side feed that info back into the planning side?
Yes. Figure 5 of the paper demonstrates this. Cicero (as France) just said (to England) “Do you want to call this fight off? I can let you focus on Russia and I can focus on Italy”. When human agrees (“Yes! I will move out of ENG if you head back to NAO”), Cicero predicts England will move out of ENG 85% of the time, moves the fleet back to NAO as agreed, and moves armies to Italy. When human disagrees (“You’ve been fighting me all game. Sorry, I can’t trust you won’t stab me”), Cicero predicts England will attack 90% of the time, moves the fleet to attack EDI, and does not move armies.
And if you’re dishonest does it learn not to trust you?
Yes. It’s also demonstrated in Figure 5. When human tries to deceive (“Yes! I’ll leave ENG if you move KIE → MUN and HOL → BEL”), Cicero judges it unreasonable. Cicero moves the fleet back to de-escalate, but does not move armies.
Yes. Figure 5 of the paper demonstrates this. Cicero (as France) just said (to England) “Do you want to call this fight off? I can let you focus on Russia and I can focus on Italy”. When human agrees (“Yes! I will move out of ENG if you head back to NAO”), Cicero predicts England will move out of ENG 85% of the time, moves the fleet back to NAO as agreed, and moves armies to Italy. When human disagrees (“You’ve been fighting me all game. Sorry, I can’t trust you won’t stab me”), Cicero predicts England will attack 90% of the time, moves the fleet to attack EDI, and does not move armies.
Yes. It’s also demonstrated in Figure 5. When human tries to deceive (“Yes! I’ll leave ENG if you move KIE → MUN and HOL → BEL”), Cicero judges it unreasonable. Cicero moves the fleet back to de-escalate, but does not move armies.