Normally, online games are like social networks (silos, walled gardens where the rule makers can change them for their own profit, slowly destroying the Game and making it a Zero-sum-game, just like other social networks or the great Fiat ponzi. When the rules of a game constantly change, your different investments can collapse catastrophically because it's like the measuring instruments for the different projects you build suddenly become imprecise and failures creep through your plans)
I thought it only was like that because the cost of developing and running an online game through servers is normally enormous. But I refuse to be bored all my life. I thought a cheaper method could disincentivize the abusive behavior of making pay-to-play oriented rule-changes to bleed your consumers (the players) without any consent
In the case I presented you, the advantages of using AI is that it could understand relations and interactions that could take a malicious human an excruciatingly big amounts of time to taint. Changes that are despotically conceived by a human could just provoke an irreversible chaos to the game.
But in this case because AI can potentially become mostly Open source, anyone could just fork the game with other AI models of similar nature and keep the previous "stable economy" thriving.
A good example of the collapse of an stable Game economy is in the article of Gigi about Diablo 2 and the stone of Jordan:
https://dergigi.com/2022/10/02/bitcoin-is-digital-scarcity/
I don't know how to explain all of it concisely, sorry😅. Maybe i'll explain the idea and details to you in a more succint way in the future.
I suppose I explained all things that way because I'm more exposed to ethics and constantly draw parallels with games (laws and rules, broken and corrupt, etc), which is related to the things You are talking about but in a different sphere of influences, I guess 🤔
When I'm talking about learning curves, I'm talking in the economic sense, like this:
https://galepooley.substack.com/p/how-learning-inverts-the-supply-curve
When people find a broken , probably unfair strategy in certain game, they begin to harness them in new emergent ways, just like when a profitable product is "improved" through massive repetitive production and learning things about it
I consider this one of the forces that drives a significant part of the players to play a game in the first place. Suddenly cutting the while strategy could provoke an exodus of the participants and be counterproductive for people generating ideas while playing the game. I consider a great advantage that AI could take all ideas as vectors and could find ways to "cut in half" the broken mechanic. People could keep learning about them and the Bad effects of the evil mechanic could be mitigated because (I guess) there aren't infinitely extended exponential learning curves in the world (eventually the profit potential could be exhausted)
i think the curve moves like the (a) in the picture when productivity increases
Yeah, that improves the productivity (supply) of certain product. The thing is that people are also incentivized to produce for a profit. If people have so much demand for a product, its price will drop pretty quickly (in a standard of law of supply and demand, free market, of course) and the producers will eventually be incentivized to produce other things because the opportunity cost of doing that will be more favorable
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
but yeah AI may come to a point where it will play with people while people think they are playing a game. this is so apparent in racing games. when you suck at it, the NPC cars also start slowing down 😄 🤦♂️
It's a similar worry to AI making an entire world of paperclips, right? If AI systems are produced by the catallactic competition of a lot of parties with their own interests and fed Nostr data (which helps prevent the spread of lies), You could expect to organically have AIs that are farther and farther away from the paperclip dystopia and if one of them becomes somewhat paperclippy, it will eventually be exposed by other models, I guess 🤷
yes rouge AI can be fixed by consciously curated AI
Another thing is that balancing games (making them more fair) is by itself an extremely difficult and time-consuming task.
Cutting a broken strategy in half and letting it evolve through the learning of the players is a lot smoother and simpler than trying to eliminate the bad thing inmediately, which could make the state of the game even more broken
That's why "I think" it's sustainable. It's simple and stupid in plain sight
this looks like at least starting the negotiation and keeping the negotiation going in order to reach a deal. both sides want a thing they don't know where the equilibrium is.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
sure. I like viewing reality as a game too
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
So you are thinking to use AI as a game designer, changing economics of the game? LLM reads the feedback of players on nostr and comes up with a plan to change the rules? Did I understand correctly?
Yeah. Given that the things people post in Nostr can't be censored, negative signal (outright lies) can't be spread so cheaply as in other places. That will have a positive effect on the previous training of the AI
I find most Nostr content to be closer to truth than elsewhere. So yes it is trainable and moves the LLM in the right direction.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
