TAG
#ai
0 reviews · 2 essays
Related essays
Guo et al.: humans drifted off the greedy move within about ten games; self-evolving AI did not — Fukai Reads
A preprint by Yingying Guo and four co-authors (arXiv:2608.07490, not peer-reviewed). They propose a way to measure how repeated play changes the way humans and language agents choose moves. Thirty-two students played 709 games across three board games, and four self-evolving language agents were run through the same metric space. Humans mostly shifted from the locally greedy move toward more global play: on the game-specific behavioral metrics, 11 of 12, 10 of 11 and 8 of 9 participants improved. The agents' gains were short-lived. The authors write that the central limitation is not the absence of reflection but the failure to convert reflection into reusable changes in behavior.
Li et al.: the AI that showed up uninvited was closed by five players out of ten — Fukai Reads
A peer-reviewed paper by Jiahong Li and eight co-authors (accepted to the 2026 IEEE Conference on Games, arXiv:2609.13718). They built PEARL, an AI support agent that retrieves expert-annotated move explanations and structurally similar peer boards, into Parallel, a puzzle game for learning parallel programming, and evaluated it with ten players. Participants rated the existing visualization tool more useful, and at least five minimized or abandoned the AI during play. Frustration scored 43.2 against 56.5. The authors conclude that what players rejected was not the content of the help but its unsolicited delivery, and ask of their own system: are we building Clippy?
