Study Compares Brain Activity In Games Against Humans and AI 37
Ars Technica covers research done using an fMRI machine to map brain activity game players. The study compares brain patterns in players competing against what they think are other humans against what they think is AI. It also goes into the differences in how games affect the male and female brain.
"The human brain appears to try to parse the intentions of others by engaging its own decision-making process; in short, it appears to model another person's mind by seeing what it would do if it were in that other person's skull. The three areas of the brain that the authors identify are involved, in part, in making executive decisions for that brain's owner, in addition to evaluating other people's executive decisions. So, the fact that they're busier when a person thinks they're playing another human could also be interpreted as them focusing harder on an identical decision making process."
Re: (Score:2)
I rather think it's the other way around: the GNAA traumatized their monkey.
Re: (Score:1)
With a notable exception. (Score:3, Funny)
See n00bs. The player won't need to focus harder on playing, but at telling them to STFU.
But n00bs might not be considered human.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:With a notable exception. (Score:4, Interesting)
You get used to embarrassing losses. Heck, I've even lost at arm wrestling to a girl after three shots of the Sauce and... Well the rest is a blur.
Also, the conclusion of this study applies to every situation where you try to guess the motivations of others. And I would like to add, it reveals a lot about the 'accuser' when they confront you on something they think motivated you. Say for example Bob consoles Alice after her breakup with her BFF Jill, at which point Cockead C accuses Bob of trying to get into Alice's pants. This shows that Cockhead C has assumed that is what motivates B, since that is what C would have done. Provided that B isn't shocked for having been found out, his motivation being something else, he now knows that C is a terrible person.
Re: (Score:2)
So every time you accuse Nigerian Princess Amufu of trying to scam you out of your savings, that shows you to be a phisher at heart?
Re: (Score:1)
It's only an assumption if there is no evidence to base the decision off of. If "Cockhead C" knows that Bob has a history of such behavior, then your point is moot. This has been more cleverly quoted as "Assume makes and ass out of u and me".
Re: (Score:2)
And I would like to add, it reveals a lot about the 'accuser' when they confront you on something they think motivated you. Say for example Bob consoles Alice after her breakup with her BFF Jill, at which point Cockead C accuses Bob of trying to get into Alice's pants. This shows that Cockhead C has assumed that is what motivates B, since that is what C would have done. Provided that B isn't shocked for having been found out, his motivation being something else, he now knows that C is a terrible person.
Or that C believes B to be a terrible person. All that it really shows is that C has some reason to believe that B is motivated by wanting to have sex with A, and that C has the capacity (read experience) to be able to conceive of someone motivated as such. It's possible to be able to conceive of someone being motivated by something without actually being motivated as such yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
But n00bs might not be considered human.
It's because the n00bs are the ones with the bots :P
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, or well, I'm not drunk, but I would write better than that even if I was drunk!
"Study Compares Brain Activity In Games Against Humans and AI"
"The study compares brain patterns in players competing against what they think are other humans against what they think is AI."
"So, the fact that they're busier when a person thinks they're playing another human could also be interpreted as them focusing harder on an identical decision making process."
Maybe it's something all AI people have in common. I failed my AI classes because, well, I never bought the book and I'm lazy, but also because my AI teacher was an italian lady whose english grammar and speech left much to which for. Add the fact that our native language was swedish and so english hearing comprehension may not have been that great + lack of decent study material from the class (OH sheet copies with remi
Dire Wolves (Score:1, Insightful)
When battling dire wolves, it is advantageous to think what they might do. It's not surprising that we have this ability, and apply it to what an idiot ahead of us on the freeway might do.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell us.
http://www.camospecs.com/Miniature.asp?ID=3568 [camospecs.com]
http://www.camospecs.com/Miniature.asp?ID=1508 [camospecs.com]
?
Could have chosen a better game (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's interesting that they chose the Prisoner's Dilemma for the game - a 2 choice discrete turn game. While not everyone knows the algorithms computers use for such games, people generally consider computers to be quite good at turn-by-turn games (like chess) and should be regarded as more formidable opponents. Not to mention playing a computer at this game should provoke our minds to attempt to decipher the pattern if we believe we are playing a computer so that we can beat it.
But the main reason I find it interesting is that it is very easy to get into an always defect loop. If you opponent has been defecting every turn, what incentive is there for you to defect? In this sense playing a human is an almost random process as to when to stop defecting, and when you do you will most likely lose the turn anyways. If I were playing a human I would think less about my opponents thoughts and fall into a tit-for-tat play style (repeating the last move), starting cooperatively.
I think it would be more interesting to see the effect of thinking you are playing a computer vs a human in a game with more information. For example, in chess you may leave a piece open when playing a human if you believe your opponent will not see it given the large number of possible moves, whereas with a computer you know at least every immediate move will be considered.
Re:Could have chosen a better game (Score:5, Informative)
I recall reading years ago that one of the most simple, common, and effective Prisoner Dilemma strategies, used by both humans and computers, was "tit for tat with random forgiveness". Basically, start by cooperating, then always repeat the other player's last move, except sometimes cooperate even if they defected last move. It doesn't really matter whether your playing with a computer or a human. The rules are simple enough to negate the ability of the computer to consider all possible moves (there are only two!), and the interaction is so limited as to negate the advantage humans normally have in reading each other. Heck, it would probably be impossible to determine whether it was a computer or a human you were playing with.
I can't help but wonder why they chose such a simple game. Maybe they wanted something non-competitive?
Re: (Score:2)
I know this. My ex drew me crazy with this.
Damn bitch!
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The article makes it sound like their computer's strategy was just, "random." Bad procedure to begin with; consider the Milgram shock experiments; the responses were kept standard, even though they were simulated.
Further, if I knew I was playing a computer, I'd have the "always random" possibility in mind right off the bat; after 10-20 shots with no discernible pattern, I MIGHT go into overdrive attempting to analyze it, but more likely, I'd just start giving random answers myself -- or, now that I'm actua
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, gender bias (Score:2)
.
If females were more empathic, you'd think their brain might be more focused on what the other person was thinking.
Sounds to me more like the female subjects didn't care and just weren't trying.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
.
If females were more empathic, you'd think their brain might be more focused on what the other person was thinking.
Sounds to me more like the female subjects didn't care and just weren't trying.
I remember seeing documentaries on problem solving, and people who tend to solve problems more efficiently tend to show less neural activity when faced with a problem.
The increased activity in male brains indicates more second-guessing, and possibly more error.
Empathy is a very powerful tool in guessing the potential responses of others correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
You thougth too much about his post and double guessed wrong.
Typical male. :)
Computers model behaviour too (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh man, boring (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
with a computer opponent you abuse his AI (e.g. building walls because the PC is so dumb to attack walls with his ranged units instead of your gatherers),
Most modern RTS games don't have problems like that - either they did away with walls, the AI knows how to react to walls, or the game doesn't allow placing walls in the abusive fashion. Also, AIs that are vulnerable to those tactics aren't that well written, especially under modern standards.
Examples of what I'm looking for include Warcraft III, Rise of Nations, and Age of Empires III. I'm sure you can abuse the skirmish AI in those games, but there's no "obvious" means to do so.