[sldev] A.I. & LL's No Gamble Rules

[Trevor Powell]

I don't work for LL, but I can't imagine that "We generated the random
numbers last week.  Today, they're totally predetermined and not random at
all" would actually be accepted as a particularly strong defense.    I
mean, honestly.  :)

Trevor



> Actually, I was looking into this as well.
> Since they explicitly state that randomness cannot be used, I was
> going to set up a blackjack table that wasn't random. Every hand would
> be precomputed on a PHP server with a large database of sequential
> hands. Like a normal video blackjack machine, the hands are geared
> 50.100% for the house and 49.900% for the player.
>
> Now, what happens when the PHP script sequentially serves these to
> multiple clients?
> Is that considered randomness, or is it "for example, the
> random order in which players may hit and kill a NPC or how that NPC
> reacts."?
>
> Alternatively, there is another way.
>
> A libsecondlife bot could be programmed to teleport to someone, accept
> a payment, and allow a resident to interact with it, basically acting
> as a NPC dealer.
> How would that be dealt with?
>
> I've been interested in chaotically stabilized learning neural
> networks for a number of years now. Does a machine's "decisions" count
> as randomness if chaos theory is behind it?
>
>
> On 8/12/07, Dzonatas <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
>> Artificial Intelligent programs, like ones to create NPCs, may hit a
>> crossroad with the gamble issue. Before this becomes a policy issue, one
>> thing to think about is how "chance," or actually "random," is being
>> used. The ban is not clear when lindens dollars are involved in
>> processes that also involve such said randomness. The intent of the
>> words suggest a limitation, but it is that jurisdiction being outlined
>> that is not clear.
>>
>> For example, if one were to win a battle with a NPC monster and its drop
>> linden dollars as a reward. The technology behind the NPC monster is
>> A.I., and that could be seen as a "chance." I doubt that such said
>> chance is supposed to carry such intent, but there is no policy to make
>> that point. As ugly legal battles get, this hole could fall prey.
>>
>> Would a simple addition to the words be enough? I thought of the phrase
>> like "the jurisdiction of excludes processes that involve a nature of
>> random access as the instance of chance." I posted this here instead of
>> directly to the legal team due to the more technical nature of the words
>> "random access." There is obviously a difference between the randomness
>> of a roll of die (or a random number generator) and, for example, the
>> random order in which players may hit and kill a NPC or how that NPC
>> reacts.
>>
>> What is a good way to describe the difference in such randomness or such
>> chance?
>>
>> p.s... NPCs have become my older kids favorite thing to play against and
>> these don't exist currently in SL besides experimental A.I. life
>> habitats
>> --
>> Power to Change the Void
>> _______________________________________________
>> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
>> /index.html
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>
>