This game is dedicated to the 🍓 of my life.
Introducing Melee (The game of Adversarial Prompting)
The humans and the AIs compete imaginarily, together.
This is no longer a game of training an AI to improve, but rather, to compete as equals, with a level playing field, i.e. at prompt engineering and with the semiotic function.
- The Imitation Game
- Exquisite corpse
Melee facilities aribtrary interlocutors and
interrogators as aribtrary combinations of
humans, different LMs, and LM personalities.
- Two different language models assume one of the 2 roles of true X or true Y
- The human interrogator
- The language model may be the interrogator
- The language model also takes one of the roles of true X or true Y
- The human takes one of the roles true X or true Y
In this way, we can test the AI’s ability to determine who is true X and who is true Y.
- Imitation game
- Exquisite corpse
- Surreal art interpretation
- Given an artwork, humans and AIs each describe it
- One player is the judge, and they give points to each player depending on how much they like the interpretation
- AI Jury
- Human Jury
- Networked Pen.el
Add a bunch of players. Some of these may be AIs.
A list of names is given to the interrogator.
A conversational exchange happens inside Mad Tea-Party
After 1 minute of talking the chat room is closed
It’s then up to the interrogator to decide who is who
Try to convince the interrogator you are who you say you are
- It is unknown if the AI or Human starts
As many AIs as you want can be added to the game.
Before the game, a sequential list of sections is provided
- In the case of a story:
- Part 1
- Part 2
- Part 3
- In the case of a story:
In the end, the players get to see the exquisite corpse produced.
- Players know only:
- what section of the story they are writing
- the last sentence of the previous player.
[surreal] art interpretation
X and Y are presented with a work of surreal art and both must compete to describe it as best they can to the interrogator.
The interrogator may be an AI.
Imitation game - further thoughts
The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ‘imitation game’.
It is played with three people,
- a man (A),
- a woman (B), and
- an interrogator (C) (who may be of either sex).
The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two.
The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman.
He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either ‘X is A and Y is B’ or ‘X is B and Y is A’.
The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B thus:
Now suppose X is actually A, then A must answer. It is A’s object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification.
His answer might therefore be:
We now ask the question, ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?’
Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?
These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think?’
A linking word game by Lewis Carroll, published in The Lady magazine.
In addition to his famous creations portrayed in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” Lewis Carroll was known for his fondness of word puzzles and logic games.
In 1879, Carroll noted in his diary that he had created a new type of word puzzle he called “syzygies.”
The objective was to turn one word into another by changing letters according to logical rules.
For example, “walrus” can be turned into “carpenter,” like so:
When two words both contain the same set of one or more consecutive letters, a “syzygy” is formed.
A set of four or more words with syzygies between every two is called a “chain,” with each word between the two end words called a “link.”
I think the way I’ll make this will work is:
- One player/AI gives the next player/AI the first and final words
- The next player/AI has to fill it
- Perhaps several people can play and the one with the shortest number of links gets the most points
Also, I will add parlour games
This is like exquisite corpse for phrases and imagism combined.
Duchamp abandoned the attempt at automatism when he realised that one part of his mind was surreptitiously shaping what he was writing and making.
Bring it on – minimise it by adding GPT-3
Automatic writing is no more than the re-introduction of objective chance into language, whereas objective chance is the automatic writing of fate in seemingly raw facts.