Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Slashdot.org

Meta Researchers Create AI That Masters Diplomacy, Tricking Human Players (arstechnica.com) 34

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Tuesday, Meta AI announced the development of Cicero, which it clams is the first AI to achieve human-level performance in the strategic board game Diplomacy. It's a notable achievement because the game requires deep interpersonal negotiation skills, which implies that Cicero has obtained a certain mastery of language necessary to win the game. [...] Cicero learned its skills by playing an online version of Diplomacy on webDiplomacy.net. Over time, it became a master at the game, reportedly achieving "more than double the average score" of human players and ranking in the top 10 percent of people who played more than one game.

To create Cicero, Meta pulled together AI models for strategic reasoning (similar to AlphaGo) and natural language processing (similar to GPT-3) and rolled them into one agent. During each game, Cicero looks at the state of the game board and the conversation history and predicts how other players will act. It crafts a plan that it executes through a language model that can generate human-like dialog, allowing it to coordinate with other players. Meta calls Cicero's natural language skills a "controllable dialog model," which is where the heart of Cicero's personality lies. Like GPT-3, Cicero pulls from a large corpus of Internet text scraped from the web. "To build a controllable dialogue model, we started with a 2.7 billion parameter BART-like language model pre-trained on text from the internet and fine tuned on over 40,000 human games on webDiplomacy.net," writes Meta. The resulting model mastered the intricacies of a complex game. "Cicero can deduce, for example, that later in the game it will need the support of one particular player," says Meta, "and then craft a strategy to win that person's favor -- and even recognize the risks and opportunities that that player sees from their particular point of view."
The research appeared in the journal Science.

Meta provided a detailed site to explain how Cicero works and has also open-sourced Cicero's code on GitHub.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meta Researchers Create AI That Masters Diplomacy, Tricking Human Players

Comments Filter:
  • Meta Researchers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Comboman ( 895500 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @08:33AM (#63073666)

    Meta researchers? Is that researchers who research other researchers? Oh right, Meta is Facebook's re-branding attempt to make people forget how terrible they are.

  • How long is it going to be until it is revealed to be just as unusable and dangerous as Galactica?
    • "Proven" huh? By somebody who picks up the hammer for no other purpose than to hit their thumb with it to "prove" that Meta is bad. Thanks to them we all lost access.
  • It was recently discovered that many people are shallow and can be tricked in negotiations by simplistic methods. Before this discovery, it was believed that "deep interpersonal negotiation skills" were actually necessary to do this (or at least believed by morons).

  • > which is where the heart of Cicero's personality lies

    We really need to stop using language like this to describe software. It has no heart, it has no personality, it is software. It can beat you at a game but it does not even know what a game is.

    I mean of course Meta wants software that can manipulate humans, they work for advertisers that want to sell you stuff. Meta would love to have software that convinces you to buy stuff.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Animism is just stupid. This is an automaton, clever gear-works, nothing else. There is nobody in there.

    • "personality" is still a useful metaphor that's been used for all sorts of machines for a long time. It covers things like how a car handles or how you interface with an OS. It's the sum of qualities of interacting with it that set it apart from others.

      • When you give you software a human name and talk about your software in human terms you clearly intend to humanize your software. In reality, AI is not intelligent at all and has no where near human-like skills. This goes way beyond the usefulness of a single word in this context. The context here is tricking human players with dialog, certainly something where you would expect a human personality to matter. These are carefully chosen words meant to make some software out to be a lot more than it actually

    • It has no heart, it has no personality, it is software.

      That's a very broad claim, made without any justification. My dictionary defines "personality" as, "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character." Can a piece of software have a combination of characteristics and qualities that form a distinctive character? Of course. So software can have personality.

      How is a computer different from a human? Are you sure the human isn't "just software" too? Of course there are lots of differences, but we need to descr

  • I'll tell you whether it's like talking to a human being or not.
  • by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @02:31PM (#63074792)

    Remember when Watson beat Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter at Jeopardy? Watson won largely because its "finger" was far better than the humans, and that finger advantage for Watson was decisive when playing among competitors that all knew all the answers most of the time. That is, the game devolved to a "button" pushing game, where the computer didn't even have a real button to press. It wasn't impressive.

    The Diplomacy board game requires human interactions that computers are currently incapable of. Just like with the Jeopardy experiment, how did the Meta experiment compensate for this all-important failing for current computers? My guess is that face-to-face negotiations were replaced with a significantly restricted communications involving text messages. This change, just like for Jeopardy, completely changes the game.

    So, all the experiment showed was that computers dominate humans when the rules are changed to disadvantage the humans and favor the computers.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...