Gamers vs AI

[Prinzip]

Who would win?

[Xero_Daxter]

AI has aimbot. They win.

[TGC> The Games Collector]

Gamurs!

I mean, an AI can barely make something in minecraft.
They're gettin' there, but they're still noobs.

[Prinzip]

Originally posted by TGC> The Games Collector:

Gamurs!

I mean, an AI can barely make something in minecraft.
They're gettin' there, but they're still noobs.

I've been thinking the same thing.

I mean, who could be a better choice than somebody who spent years fighting bots?

Calling all gamers to issue a statement by playing against AI during their next session.

[volusat]

ai

[ImSoCool599]

Depends what game.

[GunsForBucks]

AI-m bot

[AdahnGorion]

That depends on how well the AI was made and what task we talk about.

In most cases and if only one task, the AI would win. (just look at chess)

[Uncle Sam]

AI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfb6aEUMC04
This was 5 years ago.

[GunsForBucks]

Face it, bots in games typically are designed to lose or are badly programmed.
If the AI was itself trying to win without being restricted to normal rules it could just one shot everything through walls and crap like a cheater would.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

AI doesn`t need to input controls manually through keyboard or gamepad, removing the delay between decision and action.
Until we have controllers that can be used by thought (uncle Musk has you covered with brain chip ).

[Prinzip]

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

AI doesn`t need to input controls manually through keyboard or gamepad, removing the delay between decision and action.
Until we have controllers that can be used by thought (uncle Musk has you covered with brain chip ).

That's actually a good point. AI definitely has many advantages over humans (such as the aforementioned aimbot, now no input delay and so on) but I believe that human players would certainly have the advantage of perspective. AI is relatively "trapped" within the code, and thinking outside the box could be done to only a limited extent.

For example, AI would be trapped within its pathfinding algorithms, while gamers would have a "bird's eyeview" over the entire arena, and could possibly exploit whatever algorithm that AI is steered by.

[GunsForBucks]

Originally posted by Hundred thousand billion medkits:

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

AI doesn`t need to input controls manually through keyboard or gamepad, removing the delay between decision and action.
Until we have controllers that can be used by thought (uncle Musk has you covered with brain chip ).

That's actually a good point. AI definitely has many advantages over humans (such as the aforementioned aimbot, now no input delay and so on) but I believe that human players would certainly have the advantage of perspective. AI is relatively "trapped" within the code, and thinking outside the box could be done to only a limited extent.

For example, AI would be trapped within its pathfinding algorithms, while gamers would have a "bird's eyeview" over the entire arena, and could possibly exploit whatever algorithm that AI is steered by.

The AI would be generated by the same computer as the environment. It would have total knowledge of where you are at all times as it is putting you there as well as putting itself there.

[76561199630340353]

ai is gimped in older games i cant imagine why they stop all the time in hl1 even, it seems it was made to fit avg player rather tan win, so i dont think any well programmed ai can be defeated given it was programmed to do so.

[Prinzip]

Originally posted by GunsForBucks:

The AI would be generated by the same computer as the environment. It would have total knowledge of where you are at all times as it is putting you there as well as putting itself there.

I think the problem is that we haven't really defined yet what the AI would be. We know that it would be the "opponent" but I think it has to be defined in a more rigoristic manner.

AI: An intelligence that takes control of a virtual avatar

So: AI is our opponent and is controlling a virtual avatar. Now, we could make some further assumptions: It either knows everything about the game and the environment ("total knowledge") or its knowledge would be limited.

If we assume that it knew everything about the game (as you've said), we would have to ask ourselves what "everything" means. For example, if we assumed it had total control over the map and the environment (and that the environment itself wasn't a sort of neutral third party), we could assume there was still some knowledge that gamer possessed that couldn't be synthesized by the "total knowledge" the AI had. Weird example, but it would be something like: Gamer plays against strategy AI that knows everything about strategy games, but gamer surprises the AI by pulling from his experience in FPS games.

[Uncle Sam]

Originally posted by Hundred thousand billion medkits:

Originally posted by GunsForBucks:

The AI would be generated by the same computer as the environment. It would have total knowledge of where you are at all times as it is putting you there as well as putting itself there.

The AI would be generated by the same computer as the environment. It would have total knowledge of where you are at all times as it is putting you there as well as putting itself there.

I think the problem is that we haven't really defined yet what the AI would be. We know that it would be the "opponent" but I think it has to be defined in a more rigoristic manner.

AI: An intelligence that takes control of a virtual avatar

So: AI is our opponent and is controlling a virtual avatar. Now, we could make some further assumptions: It either knows everything about the game and the environment ("total knowledge") or its knowledge would be limited.

If we assume that it knew everything about the game (as you've said), we would have to ask ourselves what "everything" means. For example, if we assumed it had total control over the map and the environment (and that the environment itself wasn't a sort of neutral third party), we could assume there was still some knowledge that gamer possessed that couldn't be synthesized by the "total knowledge" the AI had. Weird example, but it would be something like: Gamer plays against strategy AI that knows everything about strategy, but gamer surprises the AI by pulling from his experience in FPS games.

What experience if the AI has practiced for billion upon billions times in ALL type of scenarios before facing a human player? Also 0 ms reaction time would mean the player gets killed way faster than in the blink of an eye. Even if we humans have 0 "delay" to press buttons we're hard capped with the reaction time of our brains, that's on a FPS game.

Perhaps in other more illogical videogames or games with abstract objectives human can win. The more "logical" a game is the easier it will be for AI to win, look at Chess for example.