Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - View Single Post - Why robots will never beat a real human being at 40k
View Single Post
post #15 of (permalink) Old 03-14-16, 02:26 AM Thread Starter
jin
Senior Member
 
jin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 205
Reputation: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArkInRev View Post
I am absolutely glossing over that because I don't believe that subset of experience is required for AI to beat a human. Or for that matter, a human to participate in the hobby.
i got that feeling about you, from your posts.
obviously, i think that you are wrong.

by the way, if you could anwser my three questions and explain well why your answers are correct, then i would give you bonus points in another role...


everything is moral.
even what we do with our leisure time.

that doesn't mean that others get to judge and determine who we think about when we polish the sword, so to speak, but it does mean that everything that we do with ourselves and common resources in our lives has consequences that affect other people. there are two ways to go. one, go libertarian ... but libertarians can't handle the complexity of a real social coordination problem, so they typically turn all game/decision theory and say 'no, everything is not moral' but then they spend 40 years increasingly turning left until now the entire position in social political philosophy is a farce. right libertarians are either stuck with a position they would rather not have or are zio-fascists and banksters. after all, who can be more libertarian than milton friedman, who told us that in so far as we are leaders (in business, which is, well, what most people do with most of their lives most of the time) our only duty is to maximize profits for shareholders, which is basically corporate governance through non-governmental mechanisms, though with collusion of government officials and coordination with government mechanisms, i.e. fascism. and this is what we see in the usa today. latter day libertarian corporate capitalism tells us everything is great so long as we don't interfere with anyone else. this is great if people are educated and trained to be wise and tolerant, but the culture is opposite to this in the usa. so, what people end up doing is complaining about what everyone else is doing, e.g. the PC bs ruining critical discourse at universities. and at the same time, corporations and especially financial corporations which have been built over the past four or five generations of fascistic collusion between wealthy people and public officers has resulted in the enrichment and empowerment of both of these two classes of people at the expense of most everyone else. this is one way to go with the question on the limits of morality. the other way to go is to just be honest, or honestly be just, and this starts with the opposite of what people call micro aggressions. instead of focusing on minimizing micro aggressions, wasting resources punishing microaggressors, people should be maximizing micro i don't know what to call it but maybe micro-graciousness ... but people are poor in constructive ideas like these, because they have been lied to their whole lives and continue to believe the lies, especially the big ones, rather than sit down and figure things out for themselves...
i know, some people turn off when people say stuff like this and that is fine, but seriously.
don't believe me?
go to merriam webster dot com, and look up the word 'aggression' as i had just done.
i was looking for an antonym for aggression.
look at the example sentence for the word, aggression, in that dictionary?
of all the possible examples, this very popular and influential website uses this example.
now, what is the problem?
well, it is not what really happened.
actually, it was us aggression which caused the attack on pearl harbor.
people in the us gov had been systematically trying to get japan to attack the usa,
so that those same us gov people could convince all of the poor farmers and kids from california to get into boats and fling themselves at machine gun nests...
then, these same people lied about what happened,
there buddies published the new history books to suit,
and their other buddies and people educated with those same books run merriam webster dot come.

Quote:
Considering enjoyment as being part of the "win" is a subjective and emotional evaluation of a game. It's like Charlie Sheen saying he's "winning." I think there would be many people that would disagree with his subjective valuation that is placed on "winning."
umm, then why do you care to do it so much, as the rest of your post is really only about that, winning?

Quote:
So, dropping AI from the equation for the moment to establish what "winning" is:

One player is a terrible painter, loses every game, makes friends, but then falls undeniably in love with the game and cherishes every moment.

Player 2 is a painting demigod, tactically crushes his opponents like the second coming of Julius Caesar, shows up to games and doesn't interact socially, but does not engage in any emotional aspect of the game. He's a professional or just plays to kill time.

Who beat who?
note the origins of your replacement word, 'beat' - it is domination.
question #1) is domination = winning?

Quote:
In my view: Player 2 wins, player 1 gets the "that's the spirit participation ribbon." That's not to diminish or mock player 1, he "gets" the hobby. But player 2 subjectively beats player 1 at painting, and objectively beats them at tactics.
i think that there are a lot of mistakes here.
player one, maybe he is a vet with one arm and ptsd.
maybe he has a hard time sleeping.
maybe he has no money, because the government won't pay his health care.
maybe it is not him, maybe it is his kid.
maybe his kid wakes up everyday feeling that the weight of the world is on his shoulders.
he can't justify the time and money that he spends on 40k stuff,
but his dad is a vet and he is proud of that,
though he is ashamed of his dad, cuz his dad is broken, and broke.
so the kid likes to hang out, grows up with shaky hands because his house, well,
had no paint and brushes worth anything because his dad had no money and couldn't paint models with one hand,
and is convinced he has bad luck.

player two is some mcmansion dweller.
he lives off his mom's credit card.
he gets to spend his time dreaming up game-breaking netlists and playing with his airbrush
in between sora aoi movies and changing his silk underpants.

player one does more work
what comes under the heading of "cognitive burden" in the literature,
than player two
simply getting to the 40k table than player two will do in a typical month
of lattes and sales meetings.

player one wins.
everything is moral.

Quote:

In tournaments, I don't really see a "Who had the most fun? at 40k" category, and even those with sportsmanship categories don't trump the weighting of the technical painting or practical winning categories. As evidenced by any painting or gaming tournament placing no objective value on enjoyment leads me to believe that other players also don't believe that the level of enjoyment is a fundamental component of winning.
yeah, and in greece older men said hello to young boys by reaching under their clothes and holding their penises for signs of shame or attraction.
maybe the guys at your tourney do that too?

Quote:
So, if AI wins the game, and a machine out paints me he wins. I'm not bothered that I have the consolation prize of "being" despite my inability to overcome that opponent. My esteem isn't bruised by a loss to a machine any more than it is by losing to a human.
the game is not about overcoming your opponent.
it is about "overcoming" one's self.

Quote:
I've won games and felt bad about my opponent not having fun. I feel a loss, but I also know that I beat that other person.
question #2) is domination = winning?

Quote:
When I've lost to AI, either in board games or video games, I know and feel that I have been beaten. I've never dismissed the AI as not really "playing" because it just did as it was programmed. I lost, I had frustrating fun, and I'm OK with my enjoyment of the game. If my opponent feels nothing, that has no impact on my win or loss.
you are training your embodied neural net to better inhabit a virtual niche with some translation to real world capacities.
congratulations for doing what all living things do.
not a necron yet, maybe.

Quote:
Sure, the AI doesn't have endorphins released to give it pleasure, but I don't think that the chemical "win" in my brain turns my loss into a victory. If an AI is "rewarded" by getting the 1 it's looking for instead of the 0, I don't really see that as a requirement to win. People participate in the hobby for different reasons, and I wouldn't diminish their motivations any more than I would diminish my computer's motivation to get that "1."
question #3) could you please describe your computer's motivation and how it came to have it?

Last edited by jin; 03-14-16 at 05:20 AM. Reason: poor spelling, specified "ancient" Greece, clarified a couple things
jin is offline  
 
 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome