When AI solves a game, focus on the game's mechanics, not its theme.

post by Cleo Nardo (strawberry calm) · 2022-11-23T19:16:07.333Z · LW · GW · 7 comments

Contents

  Appendix
None
7 comments
  1. A game design consists of two things: mechanics and theme.
    1. The game mechanics is the abstract protocol governing how the players interact with each other and their shared environment.
    2. The game theme is a fictional interpretation of the elements of the game.
    3. Consider Battleship — the theme is a naval battle, and the mechanics are a particular 2-player sequential discovery game.
    4. There is a correspondence between the ontology of the mechanics and the ontology of the theme, but this correspondence is mostly arbitrary. For example, the Knight in chess has almost nothing to do with actual knights.
  2. When an AI solves a game, people often overfocus on the theme of the game relative to the mechanics of the game.
  3. Maybe this is for psychological reasons:
    1. The theme is more interesting than the mechanics.
    2. The theme is in our pre-cached ontology — my brain already has a pre-cached concept of "naval battle" but it doesn't have a pre-cached concept corresponding to the particular mechanics of Battleship. In fact, this is why games have themes in the first place — they serve partly as mnemonics for the rules.
    3. Did you know that people cooperate more in the Prisoner's Dilemma if the game is called "The Community Game" than "The Wall Street Game"?!
  4. Or maybe this is for rational reasons:
    1. Other people might think that there is a deeper connection between the theme and the mechanics of the particular game than I do. For example, they might think there is some genuine non-arbitrary connection between the mechanics of monopoly and the real estate market.
    2. See the existing debate about ludonarrative dissonance.
  5. If people overfocus on the theme, then they will make incorrect predictions about AI.
    1. For example, they'll hear that AI has solved Full-Press Diplomacy [LW · GW] and extrapolate that AI will soon be able to solve other games of a similar theme (i.e. international military negotiations).
    2. However, they should instead extrapolate that AI will soon be able to solve other games with similar mechanics.
    3. Here's some practical advice: imagine the game had the same mechanics but a different theme. Sure, AI has solved Full-Press Diplomacy, which is scary because the theme is militaries negotiating about nations to invade. But what if the theme was about gardeners negotiating which flowers to buy? Okay, still a bit scary, but you get my point.

Appendix

So anyway, what are game mechanics?

7 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by [deleted] · 2022-11-24T01:00:12.505Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Could we use this bias to scare the public? "Oh, no — AI has just solved the Kill-All-the-Humans game."

Kill all humans is an actual game so, maybe!

Replies from: aphyer
comment by aphyer · 2022-11-24T18:35:30.187Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

AI has solved DEFCON! Oh no!

comment by Tapatakt · 2022-11-25T15:03:40.987Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Random, possibly stupid thought from my associations: what if we could create an AI capable of finding exploits in the rules of the games? Not just Goodhart the rules, but explicitly output "hey, game designers, I think this is an exploit, it's against the spirit of the game". It might have something to do with the alignment.

Replies from: strawberry calm
comment by Cleo Nardo (strawberry calm) · 2022-11-25T15:43:31.593Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This happened with EURISKO. [? · GW]

Replies from: Tapatakt
comment by Tapatakt · 2022-11-26T13:36:08.535Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

As i understand the linked text, EURISKO just played a game, not compared the spirit of the game with the rules as written. The latter would require general knowledge about the world at the level of current language models.

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2022-11-26T16:10:29.369Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Even if an AI wouldn't explicitly search for exploits, if you just had it search for the best winning solution it's quite likely that it'd hit on something that the people making the game would consider an exploit. EURISKO did it, evolutionary algorithms often do it, and communities dedicated to specific games also often find effective strategies that are considered "exploity". So if you just had an AI optimize for winning, you could probably find lots of exploits just by looking to see what its best strategies are based on.

Replies from: Tapatakt
comment by Tapatakt · 2022-11-26T18:15:48.917Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yes, I understand. My whole idea is that this AI should explicitly output something like "I found this strategy and I think this is an exploit and it should be fixed" in some cases (for example, if it found dominant strategy in a game that is primarily about trade negotiations and this strategy allows you to not use trade at all. Or if it found that in a game about air combat you can fly into terrain because of a bug in game engine) and just be good at playing in other cases (for example, in chess or go).