You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Kaj_Sotala comments on After Go, what games should be next for DeepMind? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: InquilineKea 10 March 2016 08:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (73)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 11 March 2016 06:45:39PM *  6 points [-]

May have been a vocal minority. You get some people incorrectly complaining about AI cheating in any game that utilizes randomness (Civilization and the new XCOMs are two examples I know of); usually this leads to somebody running a series of tests or decompiling the source code to show people that no, the die rolls are actually fair or (as is commonly the case) actually actively biased in the human player's favor.

This never stops some people from complaining nonetheless, but a lot of others find the evidence convincing enough and just chalk it up to their own biases (and are less likely to suspect cheating when they play the next game that has random elements).

Comment author: [deleted] 12 March 2016 02:08:00AM 2 points [-]

The Civ 5 AI does cheat insofar as it doesn't have to deal with the fog of war, IIRC.

The XCOM AI seems to cheat because they've don't report the actual probability.

Comment author: Torchlight_Crimson 12 March 2016 05:52:49AM 4 points [-]

The Civ 5 AI does cheat insofar as it doesn't have to deal with the fog of war, IIRC.

Not just that, especially on higher difficulty levels.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 14 March 2016 07:07:44PM *  0 points [-]

Right, I meant that Civ doesn't cheat when it comes to die rolls - e.g. if it displays a 75% chance for the player to win a battle, then the probability really is at least 75%.

It does cheat in a number of other ways.