7 ms·
Conversational Game Theory
- 8BitArmour 2y agoIsn't game theory suitable only for places where all the actors make rational decisions?
- pkoird 2y agoWell, strictly speaking, it is suitable for places where all actors make choices in ways we can predict. So even if an actor was choosing, say, uniformly at random (and we knew this fact), we'd be able to incorporate it into analysis to get some expected behavior.
- kouru225 2y agoYea, and so IMO this idea makes sense if you assume that bad conversation is predictable conversation (this is a simplified way of saying this but this idea was formalized within the field of literary theory by a man named Wolfgang Iser as a response to the issue of the hermeneutic circle and the merger of horizons). A conversation is evolved to its best possible outcome when it encourages the human in the loop to face their preconceived assumptions about the world and effectively do the work to come to their own conclusions rather than act as a follower
- w10-1 2y agoBut game theory also presumes a closed, on-the-record world. E.g., it doesn't handle dumping (loss as strategic gain) without opening the scope of game, but there are no scope bounds since value of any type is exchangeable (land for peace...). So game theory like newtonian physics only helps in narrowly constrained systems, but none of the real systems where help is needed are so constrained (banking laws notwithstanding).
- hoofish 2y agoThat is in classical game theory, in CGT, it is assumed the actors are both rational and irrational
- hoofish 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pmontra 2y agoThere is a 77 minutes video in the Project Reviews page from the menu of the left. Maybe there is a demo in there but I didn't bother to check. It's conversational, it's text based, why didn't they include a textual demo in a page?
- totetsu 2y agoparley.aikiwiki.com. ?
- pmontra 2y agoThat's a static page with underlined text that are not links. Does anything interactive start after "Login With Google" (that I won't press) ? Anyway, my point is that they should have presented the transcript of at least one round of the process and demonstrate the improvement it produces. It's much less time consuming for a reader that does not want to invest hours in videos or actually taking part of the experiment. On the other side, those readers might not be of interest to the authors so this is a way to let them go.
- QuadmasterXLII 2y agoIs there an exposition of the ideas and results of conversational game theory in the format and authorial style of an academic paper? Even if there is no intention to submit it to e.g. neurips, creating and prominently linking to such a pdf could help not only to refine the ideas but to communicate to outsiders. The linked website takes a while to get to the point and filled up my crank-o-meter before I got answers to basic questions like “what loss are the agents trained on” or “what do you think the equilibrium of this game is and why do you think that.” The field has settled on the (paper, github, blog post) link triplet for good reason.
- azath92 2y agoI would also love some more traditional explanation of the ideas. My impression is the author is operating outside "the field", in a traditional academic sense, whether you are referring to AI/ML or game theory research. I had a bit of a search for citations or other mentions of their 9x3 nerrative logic or Conversational Game theory and only found their own sites (in a few different places https://bigmotherdao.com/f-a-q/ https://bigmotherdao.com/f-a-q/, parley.aikiwiki.com) or an article under some contention by the author themselves on RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo. The mentioned professor James H. Fallon doesn't appear to have clear links to project outside of what is stated in the article. My crank-o-meter (great phrase) overflowed at this point, but I am also genuinely interested in some kind of more clarity around the ideas, or where they came from in an academic legacy sense, as they felt like they might have some interesting bones. Maybe someone with stronger google foo can find more, or confirm absence?
- hoofish 2y agothx for feedback. project is in stealth mode. always a good idea to be skeptical.
- hoofish 2y agoYes, this has been an independent project for many years, but has had many endorsements from computer science to cognitive science. This project has had no problems attracting attention and interest from many qualified people, and if you want to see how strong the bones are, just ask for a demo, or watch the demo on the site. It's probably not best to just go off of your first reaction, which seems a little tense and aggravated.
- nomilk 2y agoQuite like the desktop website. Feels like a pdf without the cruft.
- executesorder66 2y agoWhat is a "desktop website"?
- nomilk 2y agoDesktop, as opposed to mobile. (on mobile the site looks pretty similar to most others). On desktop it feels like a pdf, but extremely light weight (in a very nice way; loads quickly, scrolls perfectly [unlike pdfs], and isn't cluttered). Just a crisp experience.
- executesorder66 2y agoAh I understand now. Thanks.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- samirillian 2y agoOnce again an entirely backwards, upside down perspective. On Twitter he called politics the easiest job in the world. Xenophon said that man is the hardest animal to tame. And the author’s “make AI great again” mentality is a perfect example of this untameability. If it’s not actual AGI don’t tell me how a tool can actually fix the problems it creates. It’s like the author doesn’t have the most basic concept of what a tool is. Anyway happy Thanksgiving to the Americans
- elif 2y agoIt seems like the AI decision making is 'immutable' but in the end it will always come down to training data
- upghost 2y agothis is a so-often overlooked point.
- noduerme 2y agoIt's worse than that. The entire notion of an independent arbiter is deceptive at best, because the decision making will always come down to how the questions are framed. The claim here is that an automated process backed with enough data and computational power can distill any of the world's most intractable conflicts and come up with a compromise immune to "toxicity" and human bad-faith. I'd submit that in any conflict in which at least one actor is acting in bad faith to begin with, in the absence of an overriding ethical framework, any such compromise would result in a worse outcome than making a decision that one side was right and the other wrong. It's the compromise between hens and wolves.
- hoofish 2y agoIn CGT, there is no third party arbitrator, no admin, the resolution is reached player to player. thx for response
- w10-1 2y agoIf/since the universe of human bad faith is finite, it does seem possible (and useful) to detect all such forms in transactions that are on the record. This won't solve out-of-band corruption and might indeed increase its value, and hence increase the value of participating in a corruption network. gosh darn unintended consequences...
- hoofish 2y agoYou're really way out of left field. You are welcome to a live demonstration of how CGT works.
- 2y ago
- zug_zug 2y agoI'm having trouble understanding all the upvotes for a wall of buzzwords from across-fields. Would love to understand what this even is in plain english if somebody has the time.
- hoofish 2y agothx for response. I think it is pretty straight forward on the site. project is in stealth mode. "Conversational Game Theory" is pretty straightforward.
- cowpig 2y agoStealth mode project that is publishing whitepapers to HN and replying in comments about its stealthiness?
- lugao 2y agoExactly! And it was obviouslly written by (or with help of) a LLM. The first definition is even gramatically incorrect! Lets see what gemini thinks of the first paragraph if I force it to criticize it: https://g.co/gemini/share/97c1d475aae1 https://g.co/gemini/share/97c1d475aae1
- jsemrau 2y agoGame Theory and Agent Reasoning?