game ɡām/noun
1. a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played
according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
^^ from Google
I
was curious about the definition of "game" after we discussed the
Deep Blue victory over Kasparov. The beginning of chapter five tackles the
infamous chess match and the defeat of the world champion. As we discussed in
class last week, robots cannot "play," so how can a thing that cannot
"play" participate in a game. When
artificial intelligence competes, it looses the essence of
"gaminess." Bobby Fischer, chess legend, declared chess “a dead
game" in 2002 because of computer players.
The
Google definition leaves room for more leeway with the mention of "skill" because obviously skill is an
important factor in games. Then I am tempted to decipher between gaming
and play:
play
plā/
verb
1.
engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a
serious or practical purpose.
Play
has a more humanlike denotation: robots are goal-oriented, and constructed to
win. The concept of enjoyment or recreation are "foreign" to artificial intelligence. The connotation of play is
different from game as we associate emotions and childlike bliss with it. My
conclusions to gaming and play: robots can participate in games, but they cannot
play. That being said, I agree with Fischer to some extent; games are in
jeopardy because of AI’s; they lose human appeal. One factor of playing/games is friendly competition and the idea that one could win; if AI's become well versed in games to the point that they can beat world champions, much of the joy that initially brought people to games will disappear.
I agree with your ideas. Robots do not have the ability to truly understand the emotional process of "playing". They only understand the outcome, winning or losing. If robots with AI were to join in on games with world champions, it would be a one sided game honestly. It would be boring, lack emotion, and people probably would lose interest swiftly. Games and things of the nature should not include robots. They do not truly understand what it means to play, as you rightly stated, so they cannot play as a human does. I personally would not want to tune into a channel and see "human vs robot". I would not find anything about that to be remotely appealing.
ReplyDeleteJust witnessing the effects that technology has had on chess, a game which I grew up playing and highly respect to this day, makes me want to keep robot players completely out of games. Chess has been devastated by computers because they completely altered the fun. Computer scientists made the computers use the abilities they alone have against humans; how is that even fair? How is that even a game? A human physically can not keep up with the total number future moves an opponent is going to make. A computer can keep up with ALL future moves. So honestly, I feel like that wasn't the game of chess at all, it was a new kind of game entirely. The players of the game are part of what makes the game a game, so if one of the players isn't actually playing, how is that a game?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I just don't think its fair to play against computers because they have abilities humans don't and we can't compete in some situations. Not because I've been beaten by a computer and am a sore loser... maybe.