what if an ai programmed to do anything to win found itself in a losing game or tie.?
my question is about programming. lets just say you happened to design a program that always won at a game you programmed it for (lets say chess or go)andthat it was unable to accept a tie or loss and would do anything within its power to win that didnt involve cheating or hurting its opponent. it had never lost in xx amount of years running it, but one day finds itself in a board situation where it is garenteed at least at minimum a tie. would the machine **** itself off, perform some sly maneuver, or complain? im curious as to how a program would respond to a situation like that
- 2 months ago
It wasn't very well programmed. The programmer should have the game play out as normal but regardless of board state at the end game, have the program state the AI has won.
AI will never lose because the end result of the game is programmed to return victory for the AI regardless of actual outcome. Hire me, Google.
- The_Doc_ManLv 72 months ago
You are proposing a variant of the "irresistible force, immovable object" question. The answer is "wait and see" because philosophically there is no way to determine the answer to your question ahead of time.
Hint, though this might be a complex concept for you: If the AI finds itself in an "impossible" situation, it will probably also be impossible for an outside observer to evaluate the actions of the AI because if the problem is not solvable, the added factor of an observer doesn't make it solvable either.
- 2 months ago
You don't seem too really understand how programming works.
You don't just type in "do anything to win."
- SquidmasterLv 72 months ago
SImple. It stops playing.
If the game does not end, then it doesn't lose.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Wire and StringLv 72 months ago
you are anthropomorphizing. it would simply play the most advantageous move available until it lost.
- FulanoLv 72 months ago
Computers don't work like that. They don't create ideas or solve problems. It will only do what you programmed it to do.
So the only way you'd get it to "win at all cost" is to program in every possibility of what it needs to do if it finds itself loosing.
A computer can't do anything unless you give it the specific instructions to do something.
- Chris AncorLv 72 months ago
If such is NOT programmed to terminate when in a drawn or losing position, it would just keep playing forever, boring everyone & wasting a lot of time & energy That is why Chess programs have time limits built into them..
- YavanLv 72 months ago
In chess programming, the program is usually tasked with finding the "best"" solution in the given position.
If there is no way to win, then the best solution is the one that makes it harder for your opponent to win; i.e. usually the longest path to victory. Or, if a draw is possible, the computer will keep playing for that draw. most programs today have some mathematical algorithm for evaluating positions. (Those numbers which roughly correspond to the 1 pawn=1 point system.) Computers are not capable of feeling things like despair. So if it evaluates two paths and finds itself losing by 9.57 points in the first and 9.45 in the second, they'll choose the -9.45 path. They may be programmed to resign past a certain disadvantage, but if not, they'll just keep going with the best (or less worse) option.
So if a computer analyses a position and finds no path to victory, it will hanker down and make the victory of the opponent as difficult as possible. (Which incidentally is how the Soviet masters said a human should behave in this kind of position). If the computer sees a mate in 7 against itself, it will take the path that takes 7 moves, as opposed to one that hastens defeat.
Should the human opponent make a mistake, as they often do, the computer could very well end up on top again.
If you think a "won" position is easy to win, pick up a book of grandmaster games... Go up to a point where the author claims there is a clear advantage for one of the players. Now play the "winning" side against the computer. If a grandmaster hasn't yet resigned in that position, I'm guessing there's still plenty of headache in it.