Re:“Computers enable fantasies” – the continued relevance of...
by JoshCole on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @10:03PM
(#34605788)
> But StockFish is good at calculating chess moves yes
My point doesn't just extend to Stockfish. It is far more general. Overestimation generally produces unexploitable strategies. This same process shows up in many AI which incorporate game theoretic reasoning, from Pluribus to AlphaZero, it is a very common attribute of our superhuman systems. In very sharp contrast, the systems which are capable of underestimating their opponent do so and can be exploited as a consequence. They are often much worse in general, partly because the reasoning process isn't particularly solid, but also because estimation of opponent beliefs is a lot more computationally intensive. So they think more slowly.
But you are kind of dodging the spirit of my point: if you disagree with me, lets construct a wager.
You are defending the position that humans are unusually exploitable. So how much would you be willing to risk on that claim? How much are you willing to bet you can exploit a particular human - like, for example, me. At a particular time, like for example, your next comment. How much money do you expect to extract from me with your comment using this 'exploit'? I wouldn't be greatly disadvantaged by you taking even $1,000 so lets make the minimum amount you must extract to qualify as exploiting me as $1,000. Can you do this? Can you exploit this hole right now so that I can see that you are right and admit that you knew better than me about the presence of this exploitable hole that you can see but which I do not see?
If you really believed what he was saying, you should be willing to do this. A magician would really believe they could exploit errors in human visual perception for example. it isn't a bet for them. It is their career.
My point doesn't just extend to Stockfish. It is far more general. Overestimation generally produces unexploitable strategies. This same process shows up in many AI which incorporate game theoretic reasoning, from Pluribus to AlphaZero, it is a very common attribute of our superhuman systems. In very sharp contrast, the systems which are capable of underestimating their opponent do so and can be exploited as a consequence. They are often much worse in general, partly because the reasoning process isn't particularly solid, but also because estimation of opponent beliefs is a lot more computationally intensive. So they think more slowly.
But you are kind of dodging the spirit of my point: if you disagree with me, lets construct a wager.
You are defending the position that humans are unusually exploitable. So how much would you be willing to risk on that claim? How much are you willing to bet you can exploit a particular human - like, for example, me. At a particular time, like for example, your next comment. How much money do you expect to extract from me with your comment using this 'exploit'? I wouldn't be greatly disadvantaged by you taking even $1,000 so lets make the minimum amount you must extract to qualify as exploiting me as $1,000. Can you do this? Can you exploit this hole right now so that I can see that you are right and admit that you knew better than me about the presence of this exploitable hole that you can see but which I do not see?
If you really believed what he was saying, you should be willing to do this. A magician would really believe they could exploit errors in human visual perception for example. it isn't a bet for them. It is their career.