Difference between revisions of "601: Game Theory"
(→Transcript: more categories) |
(→Explanation: spelling error) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
'''Spoilers''': In the movie it then takes the simulation to the real world, planning to launch a real attack on the {{w|USSR}}. In the end the AI is tricked into quickly running through several scenarios of the game, and then shuts down its planned attack as a result of what it finds out. | '''Spoilers''': In the movie it then takes the simulation to the real world, planning to launch a real attack on the {{w|USSR}}. In the end the AI is tricked into quickly running through several scenarios of the game, and then shuts down its planned attack as a result of what it finds out. | ||
| − | After analyzing all possible strategies, the AI reports: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" Interpreted literally, this means that the computer has figured out that it will lose the game no matter how it plays, so it chooses to play chess instead (at the time of the movie, computers could not yet beat the | + | After analyzing all possible strategies, the AI reports: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" Interpreted literally, this means that the computer has figured out that it will lose the game no matter how it plays, so it chooses to play chess instead (at the time of the movie, computers could not yet beat the best human chess players, so it would be more interesting). A more profound interpretation is that wars always end badly for all parties involved so it's better to play nicer games like chess. |
In this comic Cueball loads an AI and then ask it to "analyze love" (equivalent to playing the "love game"), which initially could be expected to end happily for everyone involved, as love is the opposite of war and war ends always so badly. Surprisingly, the result from the AI is similar to the war games. Thus if you "play the love game", you'll end up badly, regardless which moves you play. | In this comic Cueball loads an AI and then ask it to "analyze love" (equivalent to playing the "love game"), which initially could be expected to end happily for everyone involved, as love is the opposite of war and war ends always so badly. Surprisingly, the result from the AI is similar to the war games. Thus if you "play the love game", you'll end up badly, regardless which moves you play. | ||
Revision as of 05:09, 10 October 2017
| Game Theory |
 Title text: Wait, no, that one also loses. How about a nice game of chess? |
Explanation
The comic and title text is a direct reference to the movie WarGames.
In the movie, the Artificial intelligence (AI) that controls the US Nuclear Weapons is asked to play Global Thermonuclear War, a real time game simulating a nuclear attack scenario.
Spoilers: In the movie it then takes the simulation to the real world, planning to launch a real attack on the USSR. In the end the AI is tricked into quickly running through several scenarios of the game, and then shuts down its planned attack as a result of what it finds out.
After analyzing all possible strategies, the AI reports: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" Interpreted literally, this means that the computer has figured out that it will lose the game no matter how it plays, so it chooses to play chess instead (at the time of the movie, computers could not yet beat the best human chess players, so it would be more interesting). A more profound interpretation is that wars always end badly for all parties involved so it's better to play nicer games like chess.
In this comic Cueball loads an AI and then ask it to "analyze love" (equivalent to playing the "love game"), which initially could be expected to end happily for everyone involved, as love is the opposite of war and war ends always so badly. Surprisingly, the result from the AI is similar to the war games. Thus if you "play the love game", you'll end up badly, regardless which moves you play.
The title text leaves love as looking actually worse than war, since in war there's at least the "winning move" of not playing, however in love even refusing to play means that the player loses the game anyway. Randall is thus stating that you have to go after love, even though you know you will loose/get hurt sometimes, because you will for sure also loose the game, even if you pretend not to play. The AI then again suggest a game of chess, as in the movie.
Transcript
- [Cueball is sitting at a desk in an office chair typing on his computer. The text appearing above him is implied to be what is displayed on the screen.]
- A.I. Loaded
- >>> Analyze love
- [An hourglass appears over the computer as Cueball sits back and wait.]
- [The hourglass continues to display as Cueball shifts in his chair.]
- [A zigzag line from the computer indicates the final reply from the computer to the query.]
- Computer: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ 
refresh comments!Discussion
WarGames is also referenced in the title text for http://xkcd.com/696 -- Blagae (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Even lifelong marriages usually end in one spouse surviving the death of the other spouse which is often not a happy ending. The idea in the explanation "which initially could be expected to end happily for everyone involved" is based on the shortsightedness of the sophomoric. 162.158.122.120 17:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
game theory is also the name of a youtuber plushie fan (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- And? There are lots[citation needed] of youtubers, each with a name. Are you implying a direct causation of some kind? Of which manner? 172.71.122.124 10:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- well, game theory is a pretty popular youtuber! and it started 2 months after this comic was released, so im actually implying a causation in a way you probably weren't thinking of. plushie fan (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's exactly why I asked "Of which manner?", thinking it more somewhat more likely that they pinched from Randall than vice-versa. (But starting from the assumption that both are coincidental and separate distant descents from the original von Neuman and Morganstern workings.) As such, that information is exactly what you might have said originally. Good catch, then, possibly...
- I of course must admit I've not heard of/noticed them. But then I don't try to keep up with any youtube channel that's not mainly covering space-tech/exploration or Dwarf Fortress, so "The Algorithm" probably doesn't think it worth popping anything from the noted account up for my attention. 172.69.43.139 22:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- well, game theory is a pretty popular youtuber! and it started 2 months after this comic was released, so im actually implying a causation in a way you probably weren't thinking of. plushie fan (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
