pm_me_your_pay_slips t1_izbngrf wrote
Does backstabbing emerge? Is it possible to win without backstabbing?
MetaAI_Official OP t1_izfbfrz wrote
Backstabbing tends to get devalued by CICERO. It has long been my thinking that backstabbing is a poor option in the game and I always feel like I fail when I have to do it, and CICERO seems to agree with me. It gets clearly better results when it is honest and collaborates with allies over the long term. If you forced it to play a pure tactical style game in an environment with communication it would perform poorly, and I think there's a marker there for human players who want to get better as well as some interesting AI ethics ideas that can be explored in future. -AG
polymorphicprism t1_izesr36 wrote
See this article about a 3x world champion.
> I asked Goff about any major falsehoods or betrayals that helped him in his victories. He paused to think, then said in his soft-spoken way: “Well, there may have been a few deceptive omissions on my part but, no, I didn’t tell a single outright lie the entire tournament.”
alach11 t1_izfpn3d wrote
With Diplomacy tournaments isn’t there also a bit of iterative game theory? If a top player develops a reputation for outright deception, that can hurt them in future games when competitors trust them less.
MetaAI_Official OP t1_izfnoh3 wrote
CICERO's dialogue model is trained to generate messages that honestly correspond to the intents (actions for itself and for its dialogue partner) that are inputs to the model, and CICERO always inputs the action it actually intends to take. That said, that doesn't mean CICERO will never attack any particular player. If it chooses to do so, it might strategically withhold details of its plans from that player. -NB
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments