Knowing the reflection of game theory and ethics, we develop a mathematical representation to bridge the gap between the concepts in moral philosophy (e.g., Kantian and Utilitarian) and AI ethics industry technology standard (e.g., IEEE P7000 standard series for Ethical AI). As an application, we demonstrate how human value can be obtained from the experimental game theory (e.g., trust game experiment) so as to build an ethical AI. Moreover, an approach to test the ethics (rightness or wrongness) of a given AI algorithm by using an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game experiment is discussed as an example. Compared with existing mathematical frameworks and testing method on AI ethics technology, the advantages of the proposed approach are analyzed.
For the technology of taking human value from experiment practically, we have illustrated an approach to take the human value (trust and trustworthy) from human subjects experiment. These parameters can be transit to AI in similar non-cooperation game condition, avoiding AI to be too tough. Though it is well known that there exists the human value(e.g., fairness, justices) in the experimental game theory @cite_0 @cite_21 @cite_4 , our approach is the first to take the human value quantitatively as AI ethics controlling parameter for AI design.
@cite_0 @cite_21 @cite_4
2140396526 2167097853 1713503745
Cooperative games with partial observability are a challenging domain for AI research, especially when the AI should cooperate with a human player. In this paper we investigate one such game, the award-winning card game Hanabi, which has been studied by other researchers before. We present an agent designed to play better with a human cooperator than these previous results by basing it on communication theory and psychology research. To demonstrate that our agent performs better with a human cooperator we ran an experiment in which 224 participants played one or more games of Hanabi with different AIs, and will show that our AI scores higher than previously published work in such a setting. Growing interest in eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to make AI and machine learning more understandable to human users. However, most existing work focuses on new algorithms, and not on usability, practical interpretability and efficacy on real users. In this vision paper, we propose a new research area of eXplainable AI for Designers (XAID), specifically for game designers. By focusing on a specific user group, their needs and tasks, we propose a human-centered approach for facilitating game designers to co-create with AI ML techniques through XAID. We illustrate our initial XAID framework through three use cases, which require an understanding both of the innate properties of the AI techniques and users’ needs, and we identify key open challenges. Many artificial intelligence (AI) applications often require multiple intelligent agents to work in a collaborative effort. Efficient learning for intra-agent communication and coordination is an indispensable step towards general AI. In this paper, we take StarCraft combat game as a case study, where the task is to coordinate multiple agents as a team to defeat their enemies. To maintain a scalable yet effective communication protocol, we introduce a Multiagent Bidirectionally-Coordinated Network (BiCNet ['bIknet]) with a vectorised extension of actor-critic formulation. We show that BiCNet can handle different types of combats with arbitrary numbers of AI agents for both sides. Our analysis demonstrates that without any supervisions such as human demonstrations or labelled data, BiCNet could learn various types of advanced coordination strategies that have been commonly used by experienced game players. In our experiments, we evaluate our approach against multiple baselines under different scenarios; it shows state-of-the-art performance, and possesses potential values for large-scale real-world applications. Developing computer-controlled groups to engage in combat, control the use of limited resources, and create units and buildings in real-time strategy (RTS) games is a novel application in game AI. However, tightly controlled online commercial game pose challenges to researchers interested in observing player activities, constructing player strategy models, and developing practical AI technology in them. Instead of setting up new programming environments or building a large amount of agentpsilas decision rules by playerpsilas experience for conducting real-time AI research, the authors use replays of the commercial RTS game StarCraft to evaluate human player behaviors and to construct an intelligent system to learn human-like decisions and behaviors. A case-based reasoning approach was applied for the purpose of training our system to learn and predict player strategies. Our analysis indicates that the proposed system is capable of learning and predicting individual player strategies, and that players provide evidence of their personal characteristics through their building construction order. Machine ethics and robot rights are quickly becoming hot topics in artificial intelligence and robotics communities. We will argue that attempts to attribute moral agency and assign rights to all intelligent machines are misguided, whether applied to infrahuman or superhuman AIs, as are proposals to limit the negative effects of AIs by constraining their behavior. As an alternative, we propose a new science of safety engineering for intelligent artificial agents based on maximizing for what humans value. In particular, we challenge the scientific community to develop intelligent systems that have human-friendly values that they provably retain, even under recursive self-improvement. Artificial intelligence has become an increasingly important aspect of computer game technology, as designers attempt to deliver engaging experiences for players by creating characters with behavioural realism to match advances in graphics and physics. Recently, behaviour trees have come to the forefront of games AI technology, providing a more intuitive approach than previous techniques such as hierarchical state machines, which often required complex data structures producing poorly structured code when scaled up. The design and creation of behaviour trees, however, requires experience and effort. This research introduces Q-learning behaviour trees (QL-BT), a method for the application of reinforcement learning to behaviour tree design. The technique facilitates AI designers' use of behaviour trees by assisting them in identifying the most appropriate moment to execute each branch of AI logic, as well as providing an implementation that can be used to debug, analyse and optimize early behaviour tree prototypes. Initial experiments demonstrate that behaviour trees produced by the QL-BT algorithm effectively integrate RL, automate tree design, and are human-readable. Meaning has been called the "holy grail" of a variety of scientific disciplines, ranging from linguistics to philosophy, psychology and the neurosciences. The field of Artifical Intelligence (AI) is very much a part of that list: the development of sophisticated natural language semantics is a sine qua non for achieving a level of intelligence comparable to humans. Embodiment theories in cognitive science hold that human semantic representation depends on sensori-motor experience; the abundant evidence that human meaning representation is grounded in the perception of physical reality leads to the conclusion that meaning must depend on a fusion of multiple (perceptual) modalities. Despite this, AI research in general, and its subdisciplines such as computational linguistics and computer vision in particular, have focused primarily on tasks that involve a single modality. Here, we propose virtual embodiment as an alternative, long-term strategy for AI research that is multi-modal in nature and that allows for the kind of scalability required to develop the field coherently and incrementally, in an ethically responsible fashion. Sepsis is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the main cause of mortality in hospitals1–3, but the best treatment strategy remains uncertain. In particular, evidence suggests that current practices in the administration of intravenous fluids and vasopressors are suboptimal and likely induce harm in a proportion of patients1,4–6. To tackle this sequential decision-making problem, we developed a reinforcement learning agent, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Clinician, which extracted implicit knowledge from an amount of patient data that exceeds by many-fold the life-time experience of human clinicians and learned optimal treatment by analyzing a myriad of (mostly suboptimal) treatment decisions. We demonstrate that the value of the AI Clinician’s selected treatment is on average reliably higher than human clinicians. In a large validation cohort independent of the training data, mortality was lowest in patients for whom clinicians’ actual doses matched the AI decisions. Our model provides individualized and clinically interpretable treatment decisions for sepsis that could improve patient outcomes. The field of artificial intelligence (AI) strives to build rational agents capable of perceiving the world around them and taking actions to advance specified goals. Put another way, AI researchers aim to construct a synthetic homo economicus, the mythical perfectly rational agent of neoclassical economics. We review progress toward creating this new species of machine, machina economicus, and discuss some challenges in designing AIs that can reason effectively in economic contexts. Supposing that AI succeeds in this quest, or at least comes close enough that it is useful to think about AIs in rationalistic terms, we ask how to design the rules of interaction in multi-agent systems that come to represent an economy of AIs. Theories of normative design from economics may prove more relevant for artificial agents than human agents, with AIs that better respect idealized assumptions of rationality than people, interacting through novel rules and incentive systems quite distinct from those tailored for people. In this article we introduce the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE): both a challenge problem and a platform and methodology for evaluating the development of general, domain-independent AI technology. ALE provides an interface to hundreds of Atari 2600 game environments, each one different, interesting, and designed to be a challenge for human players. ALE presents significant research challenges for reinforcement learning, model learning, model-based planning, imitation learning, transfer learning, and intrinsic motivation. Most importantly, it provides a rigorous testbed for evaluating and comparing approaches to these problems. We illustrate the promise of ALE by developing and benchmarking domain-independent agents designed using well-established AI techniques for both reinforcement learning and planning. In doing so, we also propose an evaluation methodology made possible by ALE, reporting empirical results on over 55 different games. All of the software, including the benchmark agents, is publicly available. Many have offered criteria for judging a design as creative. Among these criteria have been novelty, value, and surprise. We offer a unique perspective and synthesis of these three criteria with the goal of giving agents - be they artificial, human, or collectives thereof - a common model to judge the creativity of their own designs and the designs of others, and ultimately to inform computational modelling of creative design. We illustrate an AI approach to judging creativity using an example of sustainable design -- the Bloom laptop. Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques have been successfully applied to several computer games. However, in the vast majority of computer games traditional AI techniques fail to play at a human level because of the characteristics of the game. Most current commercial computer games have vast search spaces in which the AI has to make decisions in real-time, thus rendering traditional search based techniques inapplicable. For that reason, game developers need to spend a big effort in hand coding specific strategies that play at a reasonable level for each new game. One of the long term goals of our research is to develop artificial intelligence techniques that can be directly applied to such domains, alleviating the effort required by game developers to include advanced AI in their games. The purpose of this paper is to study the fundamental mechanism, humans use in argumentation, and to explore ways to implement this mechanism on computers. We do so by first developing a theory for argumentation whose central notion is the acceptability of arguments. Then we argue for the “correctness” or “appropriateness” of our theory with two strong arguments. The first one shows that most of the major approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning in AI and logic programming are special forms of our theory of argumentation. The second argument illustrates how our theory can be used to investigate the logical structure of many practical problems. This argument is based on a result showing that our theory captures naturally the solutions of the theory of n-person games and of the well-known stable marriage problem. By showing that argumentation can be viewed as a special form of logic programming with negation as failure, we introduce a general logic-programming-based method for generating meta-interpreters for argumentation systems, a method very much similar to the compiler-compiler idea in conventional programming. Keyword: Argumentation; Nonmonotonic reasoning; Logic programming; n-person games; The stable marriage problem Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... Many mathematical frameworks aim at modeling human preferences, employing a number of methods including utility functions, qualitative preference statements, constraint optimization, and logic formalisms. The choice of one model over another is usually based on the assumption that it can accurately describe the preferences of humans or other subjects processes in the considered setting and is computationally tractable. Verification of these preference models often leverages some form of real life or domain specific data; demonstrating the models can predict the series of choices observed in the past. We argue that this is not enough: to evaluate a preference model, humans must be brought into the loop. Human experiments in controlled environments are needed to avoid common pitfalls associated with exclusively using prior data including introducing bias in the attempt to clean the data, mistaking correlation for causality, or testing data in a context that is different from the one where the data were produced. Human experiments need to be done carefully and we advocate a multi-disciplinary research environment that includes experimental psychologists and AI researchers. We argue that experiments should be used to validate models. We detail the design of an experiment in order to highlight some of the significant computational, conceptual, ethical, mathematical, psychological, and statistical hurdles to testing whether decision makers' preferences are consistent with a particular mathematical model of preferences. Advances in deep reinforcement learning have allowed autonomous agents to perform well on Atari games, often outperforming humans, using only raw pixels to make their decisions. However, most of these games take place in 2D environments that are fully observable to the agent. In this paper, we present the first architecture to tackle 3D environments in first-person shooter games, that involve partially observable states. Typically, deep reinforcement learning methods only utilize visual input for training. We present a method to augment these models to exploit game feature information such as the presence of enemies or items, during the training phase. Our model is trained to simultaneously learn these features along with minimizing a Q-learning objective, which is shown to dramatically improve the training speed and performance of our agent. Our architecture is also modularized to allow different models to be independently trained for different phases of the game. We show that the proposed architecture substantially outperforms built-in AI agents of the game as well as humans in deathmatch scenarios. Opponent behavior in today's computer games is often the result of a static set of Artificial Intelligence (AI) behaviors or a fixed AI script. While this ensures that the behavior is reasonably intelligent, it also results in very predictable behavior. This can have an impact on the replayability of entertainment-based games and the educational value of training-based games. This paper proposes a move away from static, scripted AI by using a combination of deliberative and reactive planning. The deliberative planning (or Strategic AI) system creates a novel strategy for the AI opponent before each gaming session. The reactive planning (or Tactical AI) system executes this strategy in real-time and adapts to the player and the environment. These two systems, in conjunction with a future automated director module, form the Adaptive Opponent Architecture. This paper describes the architecture and the details of the deliberative and reactive planning components. This paper presents a constraint optimization approach to walling in real-time strategy (RTS) games. Walling is a specific type of spatial reasoning, typically employed by human expert players and not currently fully exploited in RTS game AI, consisting on finding configurations of buildings to completely or partially block paths. Our approach is based on local search, and is specifically designed for the real-time nature of RTS games. We present experiments in the context of the RTS game StarCraft showing promising results. Behaviour trees provide the possibility of improving on existing Artificial Intelligence techniques in games by being simple to implement, scalable, able to handle the complexity of games, and modular to improve reusability. This ultimately improves the development process for designing automated game players. We cover here the use of behaviour trees to design and develop an AI-controlled player for the commercial real-time strategy game DEFCON. In particular, we evolved behaviour trees to develop a competitive player which was able to outperform the game’s original AI-bot more than 50 of the time. We aim to highlight the potential for evolving behaviour trees as a practical approach to developing AI-bots in games. Real-time strategy (RTS) games, such as Blizzard's StarCraft, are fast paced war simulation games in which players have to manage economies, control many dozens of units, and deal with uncertainty about opposing unit locations in real-time. Even in perfect information settings, constructing strong AI systems has been difficult due to enormous state and action spaces and the lack of good state evaluation functions and high-level action abstractions. To this day, good human players are still handily defeating the best RTS game AI systems, but this may change in the near future given the recent success of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in computer Go, which demonstrated how networks can be used for evaluating complex game states accurately and to focus look-ahead search. In this paper we present a CNN for RTS game state evaluation that goes beyond commonly used material based evaluations by also taking spatial relations between units into account. We evaluate the CNN's performance by comparing it with various other evaluation functions by means of tournaments played by several state-of-the-art search algorithms. We find that, despite its much slower evaluation speed, on average the CNN based search performs significantly better compared to simpler but faster evaluations. These promising initial results together with recent advances in hierarchical search suggest that dominating human players in RTS games may not be far off.