Timeline for Is it unethical to make a game AI that is secretly non-competitive?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
46 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2017 at 9:17 | comment | added | Merlyn Morgan-Graham | A design where a reasonable (or even at-risk) player would probably just be disappointed, frustrated, or turned off by the game isn't unethical. Bad game design does not equal unethical game design. Truly unethical game design occurs most often where there's a profit motive or player feedback loop that causes substantial physical or psychological harm as a likely foreseeable outcome. The reason I'm nit-picking semantics is that there is arguably real harm being done in games, many centering around unmitigated "grinds" and/or random reward schedules. People are losing their life savings/dying. | |
| Oct 30, 2017 at 21:37 | comment | added | Tim Holt | I posted an alternate answer based on your question edit... gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/149704/… | |
| Oct 30, 2017 at 21:36 | answer | added | Tim Holt | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 8:31 | comment | added | PStag | @Pharap actually I picked the most concise answer that both, gave the two sides of answers and one of the few that addressed the secretly part which I felt was important. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 5:34 | comment | added | user64742 | for clarification do you mean the AI not being computationallly strongest as in using the best algorithm available to humans or do you mean that the AI isnt working at its stromgest as in the programmer not making the strongest version they could? The reason I ask is because a programmer might not know how to make the AI harder to beat and if that is unethical then every programmer who hasnt memorized every program ever written is unethical by that logic. | |
| Oct 26, 2017 at 18:52 | comment | added | Matthew Read | It's not unethical either way in a game (unless you're trying to exploit people's gambling tendencies for money or something), but I'd very much argue against making an AI that was too strong -- it's simply not fun. A good example of this was the Jeopardy matches with Watson. IMO they failed very badly at showing off Watson's abilities, because Watson won due to ringing in faster than the other contestants -- not due to its knowledge. Had they slowed down its ringing-in to be more "human" and less competitive, it would have been far more interesting. | |
| Oct 25, 2017 at 17:20 | comment | added | rus9384 | But what does it mean to try hard for computer? Do you mean to manage it's resources (CPU, memory) in optimal way? Then it's weird, it's almost impossible to make the program optimal. Also, the AI may be to strong for a human player (just take chess as an example). | |
| Oct 25, 2017 at 14:08 | comment | added | user3490 | I think Mel would consider this unethical... | |
| Oct 25, 2017 at 13:49 | comment | added | CGriffin | It's not exactly AI, but in the original Minesweeper (and most/all versions after), the mines are not generated until after you click the first square. This makes it literally impossible to click a mine on your very first go. I think this is a perfect demonstration of a good game design philosophy. After that first click, if you click a mine, you lose, game over. But it's simply not fun to lose on the first click before you could do anything. Whether the fun comes from an extreme challenge or another source (ie story), your first priority should always be the enjoyment of the player. | |
| Oct 24, 2017 at 20:32 | history | edited | PStag | CC BY-SA 3.0 | clarifying question |
| Oct 24, 2017 at 18:14 | comment | added | Justin Time - Reinstate Monica | If your opponent always knows exactly where you are, and has literally perfect accuracy if they actually try to hit you, is it fair for them to go all out against an opponent that's less skilled than them? | |
| Oct 24, 2017 at 17:49 | comment | added | jpaugh | Most AIs are unrealistically easy to beat. For example, why do enemies in Mario have a preset movement pattern? That makes them much easier to beat! As a player, the key for me is not whether I beat the hardest AI possible; it's whether I was challenged enough and whether I could still win. If the challenge is too small or too great, it's no longer fun. | |
| Oct 23, 2017 at 13:36 | answer | added | AnoE | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 23, 2017 at 12:34 | comment | added | aroth | "I would be offended if at the end of a board game or sport I was told that a human had not tried their hardest." - But wouldn't you also be offended to be told, after a game of Scrabble, that your opponent had been looking at your tiles the entire game? I think this question needs to clarify whether or not things that would be counted as "cheating" if done by a human opponent fall under the behavior you're asking about. Because obviously an AI can easily be given perfect knowledge about its opponent's "secret" state; does not giving it that count as being non-competitive, or just fair? | |
| Oct 23, 2017 at 12:34 | comment | added | Olivier Dulac | You should reconsider which answer is the good one... | |
| Oct 23, 2017 at 11:15 | answer | added | Filip Milovanović | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 23, 2017 at 10:21 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "I would be offended if at the end of a board game or sport I was told that a human had not tried their hardest." But that only is true for opponents of approximately equal strength. AI and humans are so different, it's difficult to compare. Let's take chess. If I would be offended, every time a computer chess algorithm didn't try its hardest, I would lose every single time. | |
| Oct 22, 2017 at 5:11 | comment | added | Tobia Tesan | I feel Ron Gilbert's 1989 Why Adventure Games Suck is an interesting read even if you're working in another genre. Principles such as "the object of these games is to have fun", "the player needs to know that she is achieving", and "as a rule, adventure games should be able to be played from beginning to end without "dying" or saving the game if the player is very careful and very observant" should be very applicable to designing AIs - including ones that "let" the player win. | |
| Oct 21, 2017 at 11:20 | vote | accept | PStag | ||
| Oct 21, 2017 at 0:39 | answer | added | user64554 | timeline score: 44 | |
| S Oct 20, 2017 at 15:36 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Oct 20, 2017 at 15:36 | comment | added | user1430 | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Oct 20, 2017 at 15:35 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Oct 20, 2017 at 12:42 | answer | added | Tom | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 20, 2017 at 9:22 | vote | accept | PStag | ||
| Oct 21, 2017 at 11:20 | |||||
| Oct 20, 2017 at 9:20 | vote | accept | PStag | ||
| Oct 20, 2017 at 9:22 | |||||
| Oct 20, 2017 at 9:18 | vote | accept | PStag | ||
| Oct 20, 2017 at 9:20 | |||||
| Oct 20, 2017 at 2:06 | answer | added | ZeroUnderscoreOu | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 20, 2017 at 1:55 | answer | added | logicean | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 23:41 | answer | added | Gigazelle | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 22:14 | answer | added | Geenimetsuri | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 18:56 | answer | added | Tim Holt | timeline score: 26 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 18:39 | answer | added | Graham Toal | timeline score: 9 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 18:34 | answer | added | Carl | timeline score: 19 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 17:01 | answer | added | uliwitness | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 16:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 21, 2017 at 15:37 | |||||
| Oct 19, 2017 at 16:05 | answer | added | Xtros | timeline score: 9 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 15:03 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackGameDev/status/921028915547787268 | ||
| Oct 19, 2017 at 14:56 | answer | added | Nicol Bolas | timeline score: 47 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 13:59 | history | edited | Vaillancourt♦ | edited tags | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 13:58 | answer | added | Vaillancourt♦ | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 13:56 | answer | added | Philipp | timeline score: 240 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 13:48 | answer | added | ratchet freak | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 13:38 | answer | added | Yousef Amar | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 13:07 | answer | added | Uri Popov | timeline score: 12 | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 12:36 | history | asked | PStag | CC BY-SA 3.0 |