Readit NewsThe better question is whether or not this merger makes any sense.
And when I finally put the game down and just watched through the rest on Youtube, like, I could see what the game was getting at and why people would be fascinated by it but it was by no means life-changing unless you've had a very boring life.
The "head or tails" is currently whether one thinks those ICE gunmen should be on that block, with their uniform, and with their orders.
I'm absolutely not contesting that online play is hugely popular.
I guess I'm trying to understand how widespread and serious the problem of cheaters using AI/computer cheats actually is [1]. Maybe the answer is "not worse than before"; I'm skeptical about this but I admit I have no data to back my skepticism.
[1] I know Counter Strike back in the day was sort of ruined because of cheaters. I know one person who worked on a major anticheat (well-known at the time, not sure today), which I think he tried to sell to Valve but they didn't go with his solution. Also amusingly, he was remote-friends with a Russian hacker who wrote many of the cheats, and they had a friendly rivalry. This is just an ancedote, I'm not sure that it has anything to do with the rest of my comment :D
> I guess I'm trying to understand how widespread and serious the problem of cheaters using AI/computer cheats actually is.
It is undoubtedly more widespread.
> I know Counter Strike back in the day was sort of ruined because of cheaters.
There is truth in this, but this only affected more casual ladder play. Since early CSGO (maybe before as well? I am not of source age) there has been FACEiT and other leagues which asserts strict kernel-level anti-cheat and other heuristics on the players. I do agree this cat and mouse game is on the side of the cat and the best competition is curated in tightly controlled (often gate-kept) spaces.
It is interesting that "better" cheating is often done through mimicking humans closer though, which does have an interesting silver lining. We still very much value a "smart" or "strategic" AI in match-based solitary genres, why not carry this over to FPS or the like. Little Timmy gets to train against an AI expressing "competitive player" without needing to break through the extreme barriers to actually play against someone of this caliber. Quite exciting when put this way.
If better cheats are being forced to actually play the game, I'm not sure the threat is very existential to gaming itself. This is much less abrasive than getting no-scoped in spawn at round start in a CS match.
> Will you be even more discouraged if I share that "table flipping" and "sleight of hand" have ruined many tabletop games?
What does this have to do with AI or online games? You cannot do either of those in online games. You also cannot shove the other person aside, punch them in the face, etc. Let's focus strictly on automated cheating in online gaming, otherwise they conversation will shift to absurd tangents.
(As an aside, a quick perusal of r/boardgames or BGG will answer your question: yes, antisocial and cheating behavior HAVE ruined tabletop gaming for some people. But that's neither here nor there because that's not what we're discussing here.)
> Are you pressed to find a competitive match in your game-of-choice currently? I can recommend online mahjong!
What are you even trying to say here?
I'm not complaining, nor do I play games online (not because of AI; I just don't find online gaming appealing. The last multiplayer game I enjoyed was Left 4 Dead, with close friends, not cheating strangers). I just find the topic interesting, and I wonder how current AI trends can affect online games, that's all. I'm very skeptical of claims that they don't have a large impact, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
I think some of this boils down to whether one believes AI is just like past phenomena, or whether it's significantly different. It's probably too early to tell.
Claim 1: Cheating is endemic to competition across all formats (physical or digital)
Claim 2: Despite this, games survive and thrive because people value the competitive spirit itself
Claim 3: The appreciation of play isn't destroyed by the existence of cheaters (even "cheaters" who simply surpass human reasoning)
The mahjong suggestion isn't a non-sequitur (while still an earnest suggestion), it was to exemplify my personal engagement with the spirit of competition and how it completely side-steps the issue you are wary is existential.
> I think some of this boils down to whether one believes AI is just like past phenomenons, or whether it's significantly different. It's probably too early to tell.
I suppose I am not clear on your concern. Online gaming is demonstrably still growing and I think the chess example is a touching story of humanism prevailing. "AI" has been mucking with online gaming for decades now, can you qualify why this is so different now?
I know pre-AI cheats have ruined some online games, so I'm not sure it's an encouraging thought...
Are you saying AI can help detect AI cheats in games? In real time for some games? Maybe! That'd be useful.
Will you be even more discouraged if I share that "table flipping" and "sleight of hand" have ruined many tabletop games? Are you pressed to find a competitive match in your game-of-choice currently? I can recommend online mahjong! Here is a game that emphasizes art in permutations just as chess does, but every act you make is an exercise in approximating probability so the deterministic wizards are less invasive! In any-case, I'm not so concerned for the well-being of competition.
> Are you saying AI can help detect AI cheats in games? In real time for some games? Maybe! That'd be useful.
I know a few years back valve was testing a NN backed anti-cheat watch system called VACnet, but I didn't follow whether it was useful. There is no reason to assume this won't be improved on!
But I'm out of the loop: in order to maintain popularity, are computers banned? And if so, how is this enforced, both at the serious and at the "troll cheating" level?
(I suppose for casual play, matchmaking takes care of this: if someone is playing at superhuman level due to cheating, you're never going to be matched with them, only with people who play at around your level. Right?)
Firsrly, yes, you will be banned for playing at an AI level consecutively on most platforms. Secondly, its not very relevant to the concept of gaming. Sure it can make it logistically hard to facilitate, but this has plagued gaming through cheats/hacks since antiquity, and AI can actually help here too. Its simply a cat and mouse game and gamers covet the competitive spirit too much to give in.
The problem I have with this literary device is that I think it works if most / many questions would fit it then he would go to disapprove it. Using it, for me, kind of indirectly reinforces the idea that "there are many simple answers". Which I came to loathe as it is pushed again and again due to social media. Everything is "clear", "simple", "everybody knows better", "everybody did their research".
How did this literal device make you feel? Interested? Curious? Bored? When I read it my initial instinct was "no, it's definitely not simple, so if that's what are you going to explain me, I will not bother".