Recent research by Australian researchers shows that, in the context of strategic video games, neurotic AI may do better than rational ones. From Mind Hacks:
They used the popular strategy game Age of Mythology and created four software ‘bots’ to play the computer which were loosely based on the ‘big five‘ personality traits.
When they compared their successes, the version designed to simulate ‘neurotic’ personality traits came equal first in number of games won, but was the clear winner when the average time to victory was compared.
This AI was programmed to distort the its own perception of resources and flip between aggressive and defensive styles of play unpredictably. In trials, the neurotic AI beat Age of Mythology more often than any AI except the ‘aggressive’ bot, and won faster than even the agressive one did.
This study doesn’t prove much of anything, at this point, except that Age of Mythology favors a slightly uneven playing style, but the implications fascinate me. Against humans, perhaps in a poker game, it’s easy to see how a bit of unpredictability could make for a better game. It’s pretty easy to confuse and blindside a person. However, I don’t think Age of Mythology’s program is intelligent enough to develop complex thoughts about what strategies a player is using. (I could be wrong, of course.) I don’t think machines are susceptible to the cognitive traps that humans might fall into. In light of this, I’m not sure how the neurotic AI managed to win. Reason dictates that a well-informed person will have better strategy than a misinformed person, right?
If mild neuroticism really does allow people to win more often then their purely rational counterparts, it could provide a great deal of support for theories arguing that mental illnesses are more severe forms of adaptive habits.
0 Responses to “Competitive Neuroticism”