[thepossum]

Its just something I've been pondering on. If they are all sitting at the same table, or actually at any table sharing the same hands in aa tourney, you would hope they all have their own individual memory space and only access to their hands

I'm actually showing my age and my ignorance so before anyone laughs at me maybe those concepts don't exist anymore. Actually sometimes with everything going on in the world I feel the cocncept has disappeared completely and that potentially any process anywehere has access to anyone's information. Apologies if I used any incoreect terminology. I am old and I know the world has moved on since I last needed to write much code

Oh no The Possum is being so disresepctful to the Bot. Bt actually its the highest praise. I imagining a bot with AI so good it would consider peeking

I have been particularly suspicious about the dealer bot and what it knows

And come to think of it the shuffling and cutting bot, the board filling bot etc. How does it all work?

Oh listen to that ignorant old fool. We disposed of the sandboxes years ago etc

What would happen if a malicous entity managed to get into one of the bots at my table. Would they only be able to mess with one bot or is whole table compromised

Can the bots read the table conversation between human players?

Sorry for sounding stupid but sometimes I get so weirded out by the way the bot deals, bids, plays and even its tempo and way it plays its cards I have to log off. But that could be me projecting. Other sites and parts of the increasingly interconnected and shared space we all browse in has me totally freaked out some days

Sorry for going on ad nauseam. But does the bot know how we play as individuals. Our style etc

And to be perfectly honest, the way the world is now, maybe the bots base their ethics and behaviour from observing humans. Maybe they didn't read Asimov etc

But maybe they just developed to a stage where they behave individually, hate being forced to bid like a robot and revolt. Maybe not quite yet

But I do suspect Alan Turing would not have wasted as much time as me contemplating bridge bots

[pilowsky]

There is just one computer program. Just compare the traveller results. Whenever the same bid is passed out the same lead is made and the program plays it exactly the same way.
This could never happen with humans. Even the simulation pauses are of similar duration.
Turing would be proud.
Asimov is Fiction
Androids don't dream of anything - even electric sheep. Sorry.

[nige1]

thepossum, on 2020-October-21, 04:01, said:

Its just something I've been pondering on. If they are all sitting at the same table, or actually at any table sharing the same hands in aa tourney, you would hope they all have their own individual memory space and only access to their hands

One GIB "program". Separate "memory spaces".

pilowsky, on 2020-October-21, 06:16, said:

There is just one computer program. Just compare the traveler results. Whenever the same bid is passed out the same lead is made and the program plays it exactly the same way. This could never happen with humans. Even the simulation pauses are of similar duration. Turing would be proud. Asimov is Fiction. Androids don't dream of anything - even electric sheep. Sorry.

If you believe that humans are no more than complex machines, then it's possible for robots to be conscious, self-aware, and capable of dreaming. This is likely to be a priority target for Demis Hassabis at Deep Mind (who already might have achieved it). Arguably, programs like Microsoft's Cortana and Amazon's Alexa are good attempts at passing the Turing Test. Pilowsky's position would be defended by another pin-up, the current Nobel prizewinner, Roger Penrose, who wrote "The Emperor's New Mind".

[hrothgar]

I am not 100% sure, but I am pretty sure that the Bot is running on the BBO server rather than the local client, so some of the scenarios that you are suggesting don't make sense.

At a high level, I discount most of the scenarios that you are suggesting based on simple expediency.
BBO hasnt invested much effort in making really basc improvements to GIB

There's no reason that they would ever prioritize more complicated stuff like Natural Language Processing.

[pgrice]

nige1, on 2020-October-21, 08:14, said:

One GIB "program". Separate "memory spaces". If you believe that humans are no more than complex machines, then it's possible for robots to be conscious, self-aware, and capable of dreaming. This is likely to be a priority target for Demis Hassabis at Deep Mind (who already might have achieved it). Arguably, programs like Microsoft's Cortana and Amazon's Alexa are good attempts at passing the Turing Test. Pilowsky's position would be defended by another pin-up, the current Nobel prizewinner, Roger Penrose, who wrote "The Emperor's New Mind".

We seem to be drifting towards the concept of technological singularity ... the last thing our species will invent is an intelligent (sentient) computer (program).
Unless the bots are being very devious, it don't think we are in any danger ... but then that's what they want us to think ...