Item — HN Reader

That's why humans should insist on competing with AIs in our world not theirs (simulation).

When it matters, the playing field will be stacked heavily against the human who will not have direct access to the informed encoded in the virtual world. Putting it differently, any AI in a simulation is in some sense indistinguishable from the simulation itself (or at least, you should assume so).

2 comments

> with AIs in our world not theirs

The benefit of keeping things in "their world" is that "our world" requires massive investment in sensors, while the exact same algorithms would be used. Letting them play in their world means you can focus on the algorithms. But, I agree that it should be fair. Putting a human in front of a screen with a steering wheel is in no way comparable to the sensory experience of being in a car. I'm fine around a race track, but racing simulators are nearly impossible for me.

It's hard to draw the boundary. We could say that AI should only be given access to exactly the same information that humans have access to. But AI will have magnitudes more memory and compute resources. So for example, an AI could only have the 2D view but it could store, access and process the 2D view in ways a human cannot.

> We could say that AI should only be given access to exactly the same information that humans have access to.

I believe that it would be naïve to believe the owner of the AI (whether a person, and organization, or another AI) would play by those rules. Better to assume an adversarial game board.

One approach would be to simply not compete against an AI even in our world. Another would be be to be in control of the framing or environment where you can outplay, outlast the AI. Do not assume friendship because its goals will be different from that of humans, unless you can be certain of mutual dependency.

The game theory around human/AI coexistence extends beyond these quick thought bytes, maybe someone is working one a treatise.

It has to do with input data. Part of the game is rationalizing what is on the screen and maintaining a memory or prediction of offscreen activity. When they get direct feeds to game data, it's cheating.

The AI should be given a game screen. I think it should also need to actually use a mouse and keyboard too if im being honest.

I would be way better at games if I only need to think about what I want to do in the game and have it done rather than use some method of physical controls to do so

> I think it should also need to actually use a mouse and keyboard too if im being honest.

I'd go one step further and say those mouse inputs should be "fuzzed" a bit as a function of "actions per minute" because humans lose accuracy (both in the time domain and spatial domain) when they try to make more actions faster and faster. Obviously APM needs to be capped as well, preferably actually slightly lower than human APM.

The main reason for this to me is that it will help guide the AI's towards generating strategies which humans can actually emulate and learn from.

If you want to have an AI-only tournament, then by all means make up your own rules. If you want to say your AI "beat a human" then you have to be playing the same damn game.

Yes, but more memory and processing power might mean the AI is actually better at performing the same task. Cleaner, pre-processed input data is cheating in a different way.