[ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship

Giulio Prisco giulio at gmail.com
Sun Mar 13 07:33:08 UTC 2016

Fourth match ongoing now, the commentators say that Sedol might get
this one. Very interesting to watch and see what happens.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Is the art of bluffing programmable?
> Yes.
> You have to have a good enough model of the ones you're bluffing - but
> that's exactly like humans needing to know something about the ones they're
> bluffing: someone from a completely different culture and background, who
> you have no information about and no way to read, you don't even know where
> to begin.  Same with an AI bluffer.
> Once you have that model, you run that model with the information you know
> about, to assess the chances that the other side will call your bluff.  You
> then compare to the advantage you would gain from bluffing, and do a
> risk/reward computation.  Again, this is exactly what human bluffers do too,
> though they may do it less formally.
> The difficult part is forming those models.  This is, at some level,
> understanding one's opponent - and being able to understand another person
> at this level is one of the traits that humans prize as making themselves
> humans.  Those humans who utterly lack this capability at any meaningful
> level (not necessarily enough to win poker, but enough to usefully
> anticipate others' reactions to their actions) are viewed as damaged, in
> need of repair if possible.
> This might not be everything that's needed for "true" AI, but a generalized
> capability to create these models would certainly be one step closer.  And
> once programs can do this at near-human levels, that will immediately have
> utility on its own: at first to teach the "damaged" ("sociopathic") humans
> what they are missing and how to (re)gain this ability that is necessary to
> function in society, then (as the capability improves) in automating certain
> standard social interaction tasks, such as sales.
> One could imagine a future where there exist salesbots and anti-salesbots,
> the former attempting to negotiate an exchange of benefit to the former's
> users which may or may not be of benefit to the latter's users, the latter
> attempting to screen out those not of benefit to their users.  One could
> even freak out and hypothesize that the higher version will always win -
> that each moment-by-moment incremental improvement will somehow translate
> into an inevitable victory for the latest version, which would more likely
> be used by those with more resources, and that since this affects said
> resources that this would inevitably snowball into an extreme parody of
> today's concentrations of wealth.  (Most likely, quite a few people will
> have this exact freak out once they realize salesbots are theoretically
> eventually possible - among other factors, that it is an extreme version of
> a widely recognized modern social problem makes it attractive - which makes
> specific countermemes worth preparing.)
> But that seems unlikely to happen in practice.  For one, those who have few
> resources can not make expensive transactions by definition - you can't
> squeeze blood from a stone - which inherently limits the value that the
> salesbots could extract.  For another, that even the wealthy suffer when
> most people are in poverty have been proven: to be moderately wealthy in an
> affluent society is, in most modern and historical examples, to be wealthier
> in absolute terms than to be the richest person among the desperately poor.
> For a third - correlated with the second - many things are only affordable
> if purchased en masse, and get better the more people they serve.  (One
> example: computer chips.  It would be basically impossible for even the
> richest man on Earth to fund a modern fab development program for his
> exclusive use, but when that same fab makes chips with millions or billions
> of customers, there is a better than billion-fold improvement.)  This
> information would be available to these hypothetical super-sales agents, who
> - if they were tasked with maximizing their owners' wealth, as may well
> happen - would go about making everyone rich (by the standards around when
> they started) because that would be the most efficient method of
> accomplishing their goal (as is said, a rising tide lifts all boats).
> Then there's the matter of incremental improvement being inevitably that
> much better.  To be blunt, that just doesn't happen in reality, in any
> field.  There is no reason to believe that salesbot version will
> automatically completely defeat all anti-salesbots of version and
> earlier.  Indeed, there have been times where later versions were actually
> worse; one current example is the large number of Windows 7 users who have
> judged Windows 8 and 10 to be downgrades (while their judgement is
> subjective, one can suppose that a sizable majority of competent users will
> recognize and act in their own self interest, and that - absent specific
> evidence to the contrary - such a majority is more likely than not to be
> correct), to the point that Microsoft is having to support Windows 7 more
> than anticipated.
> Also, these are voluntary transactions.  If the salesbot comes from a
> sufficiently distrusted source - like, say, a certain wealthy individual
> known or believed to have acquired that wealth through less than mutually
> beneficial transactions - that salesbot may simply run into a wall of
> everyone saying "no", to which the salesbot has no recourse.  (At least,
> none save for resorting to misrepresentations and other actions commonly
> deemed damaging to the common good and therefore illegal in most places -
> but if we're supposing super salesbots, let us also suppose merely competent
> fraud analytics of the sort some law enforcement agencies already have
> access to, which would be able to detect these activities, and then the
> super salesbots would find themselves deactivated when their users are
> jailed.  The law could be bought off, but that only works temporarily:
> eventually someone gets into power who hasn't been bought off.  Sufficiently
> smart salesbots would know this would be the eventual outcome if they were
> abusive, and thus that it would be in service to their end goal to not be
> abusive.)
> Is that a sufficiently long answer?  ;)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list