Study Compares Brain Activity In Games Against Humans and AI

Ars Technica covers research done using an fMRI machine to map brain activity game players. The study compares brain patterns in players competing against what they think are other humans against what they think is AI. It also goes into the differences in how games affect the male and female brain. "The human brain appears to try to parse the intentions of others by engaging its own decision-making process; in short, it appears to model another person's mind by seeing what it would do if it were in that other person's skull. The three areas of the brain that the authors identify are involved, in part, in making executive decisions for that brain's owner, in addition to evaluating other people's executive decisions. So, the fact that they're busier when a person thinks they're playing another human could also be interpreted as them focusing harder on an identical decision making process."

Comments

With a notable exception.

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, the fact that they're busier when a person thinks they're playing another human could also be interpreted as them focusing harder on an identical decision making process."
See n00bs. The player won't need to focus harder on playing, but at telling them to STFU.
But n00bs might not be considered human.

Re:With a notable exception.

[arogier]

Its like playing chess against a child versus playing chess against a grandmaster. Of course you are going to play much harder against the kid. Loosing to the kid would be so much more embarrassing.

Re:With a notable exception.

[Ceriel Nosforit]

You get used to embarrassing losses. Heck, I've even lost at arm wrestling to a girl after three shots of the Sauce and... Well the rest is a blur.

Also, the conclusion of this study applies to every situation where you try to guess the motivations of others. And I would like to add, it reveals a lot about the 'accuser' when they confront you on something they think motivated you. Say for example Bob consoles Alice after her breakup with her BFF Jill, at which point Cockead C accuses Bob of trying to get into Alice's pants. This shows that Cockhead C has assumed that is what motivates B, since that is what C would have done. Provided that B isn't shocked for having been found out, his motivation being something else, he now knows that C is a terrible person.

Could have chosen a better game

[falckon]

I think it's interesting that they chose the Prisoner's Dilemma for the game - a 2 choice discrete turn game. While not everyone knows the algorithms computers use for such games, people generally consider computers to be quite good at turn-by-turn games (like chess) and should be regarded as more formidable opponents. Not to mention playing a computer at this game should provoke our minds to attempt to decipher the pattern if we believe we are playing a computer so that we can beat it.

But the main reason I find it interesting is that it is very easy to get into an always defect loop. If you opponent has been defecting every turn, what incentive is there for you to defect? In this sense playing a human is an almost random process as to when to stop defecting, and when you do you will most likely lose the turn anyways. If I were playing a human I would think less about my opponents thoughts and fall into a tit-for-tat play style (repeating the last move), starting cooperatively.

I think it would be more interesting to see the effect of thinking you are playing a computer vs a human in a game with more information. For example, in chess you may leave a piece open when playing a human if you believe your opponent will not see it given the large number of possible moves, whereas with a computer you know at least every immediate move will be considered.

Re:Could have chosen a better game

[artor3]

I recall reading years ago that one of the most simple, common, and effective Prisoner Dilemma strategies, used by both humans and computers, was "tit for tat with random forgiveness". Basically, start by cooperating, then always repeat the other player's last move, except sometimes cooperate even if they defected last move. It doesn't really matter whether your playing with a computer or a human. The rules are simple enough to negate the ability of the computer to consider all possible moves (there are only two!), and the interaction is so limited as to negate the advantage humans normally have in reading each other. Heck, it would probably be impossible to determine whether it was a computer or a human you were playing with.

I can't help but wonder why they chose such a simple game. Maybe they wanted something non-competitive?