The robots could never win because they could never be programed to "play dirty". Think about it, when a human does something underhanded to hurt another player you think "That guy is a dick" but it is understandable because he is human and so are you.
If a robot did this, there would be serious reprecussions to both the robot, and the designer. No one would accept a robot that behaved this way, therefore the humans will alway have a considerable advantage.
In the same vein, this is why it is especially tough to build automated drivers for automobiles. With a human bus driver, an accident seems like an inevitable fact of life. To make a robotic driver with human intelligence requires it to also have human faults. It might, late at night, mistake the road as going off in the wrong direction and crash the car. The problem is, for a robot to do this is unacceptable.
This is why really building a robot is so difficult: because of people's relation to them.
People want robots to have the intelligence of people, while requiring the reliability of machines.
Is this possible? Probably, but it is most likely very difficult. Probably even more difficult than simply creating a AI "as good" as a persons.
Let's say Argentina is offered X to go rescue these guys. Unfortunatly, it turns out to cost Y (where Y > X)
Y - X = Z
If you can save more than 107 people using Z dollars in social programs or something, you don't go rescue the people. It becomes even more sticky in this case, because a government is being asked to save the citizens of another country (tough to justify to your voters) who got themselves in the situation in the first place.
Now, before I come off as too much of a cold hearted bastard, this is not how the human mind works. Fortunatly or unfortunatly we go on what is immediate and right in front of us. This is why people will give a couple dollars to a homeless guy, but never seem to do 5 cents a dat to save the children through a much more reliable program.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just another robot, consider this:
The robots could never win because they could never be programed to "play dirty". Think about it, when a human does something underhanded to hurt another player you think "That guy is a dick" but it is understandable because he is human and so are you.
If a robot did this, there would be serious reprecussions to both the robot, and the designer. No one would accept a robot that behaved this way, therefore the humans will alway have a considerable advantage.
In the same vein, this is why it is especially tough to build automated drivers for automobiles. With a human bus driver, an accident seems like an inevitable fact of life. To make a robotic driver with human intelligence requires it to also have human faults. It might, late at night, mistake the road as going off in the wrong direction and crash the car. The problem is, for a robot to do this is unacceptable.
This is why really building a robot is so difficult: because of people's relation to them.
People want robots to have the intelligence of people, while requiring the reliability of machines.
Is this possible? Probably, but it is most likely very difficult. Probably even more difficult than simply creating a AI "as good" as a persons.
---Lane
Ok,
So I can't be the only one who thought this had something to do with home improvement. Come on, admit it.
---Lane
The term is called "Murder by the numbers"
Let's say Argentina is offered X to go rescue these guys. Unfortunatly, it turns out to cost Y (where Y > X)
Y - X = Z
If you can save more than 107 people using Z dollars in social programs or something, you don't go rescue the people. It becomes even more sticky in this case, because a government is being asked to save the citizens of another country (tough to justify to your voters) who got themselves in the situation in the first place.
Now, before I come off as too much of a cold hearted bastard, this is not how the human mind works. Fortunatly or unfortunatly we go on what is immediate and right in front of us. This is why people will give a couple dollars to a homeless guy, but never seem to do 5 cents a dat to save the children through a much more reliable program.
---Lane