|
|
|
|
|
|
by sanxiyn
1304 days ago
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, as described in the paper, the bot in fact never lies, in this sense: there is a model that generates messages from moves, where messages should correspond to moves, and when the bot says any messages, at the time, they are generated from moves the bot truthfully intends to play. On the other hand, the bot has no concept whatsoever of keeping its words. After saying words, it is free to change its mind about what moves to play, motivated from, for example, messages from other players. |
|
|
> On the other hand, the bot has no concept whatsoever of keeping its words. After saying words, it is free to change its mind [snip]
Reminds of that one Asimov story about the robot who had a different interpretation of the first law of robotics. If my very hazy memory is right, the idea was that the robot could put a person in danger if it knew that it had the ability to prevent any damage from happening, but once it caused the danger, it could choose not to act and allow the person to come to harm.
I might be remembering this incorrectly, it's been a very long time since I read the story, but that was the first thought that came to mind when reading your comment :).