Envisaging a Game of Subtlety Enabling New Global Dynamics

Design implications from an artificial intelligence perspective

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]

Introduction

There is fairly frequent reference to the game metaphor as relevant to comprehension of the current chaotic times. It is of course the case that games of every kind are widely appreciated and a primary focus of popular attention -- perhaps as a distraction. Beyond the many traditional games, online gaming and esports have become a focus in their own right. The psychosocial sciences, through transaction analysis, have developed the insight of Eric Berne (Games People Play, 1964). Gamesmanship has been recognized as a key to strategic success (Michael Maccoby, The Gamesman: the new corporate leaders, 1977).

As might be expected, this highly successful framing has been variously adapted to institutions (Games Organizations Play, European Group for Organizational Studies; Political and Social Games Corporations Play, Corporations in Evolving Diversity: Games Nations Play: Analyzing international politics; Games Countries Play). It has also been adapted to academia and other disciplines (Games Academics Play and their consequences; Games Scientists Play; Games Politicians Play; Games Bureaucrats Play; Games Bankers Play; Games Religions Play; Games Philosophers Play).

Particular attention has been evoked by the games reputedly played with respect to strategies of social change (Games Climate Scientists Play; Games Environmenalists Play). Arguably the game metaphor is relevant to the military-industrial complex, the operation of cartels, and to organized crime (Jamie Woodcock, The Military-Industrial Games Complex, Jacobin, 28 July 2023; Daniel Rautenba, Gamification of the Military-Industrial Complex, 2021; Bud Allen, Games Criminals Play: how you can profit by knowing them, 1981). It has been notably remarked that the military has been financing, inventing and perfecting games for people to play (Corey Mead, Shall we play a game?: The rise of the military-entertainment complex, Salon, 19 September 2023).

An insightful approach of relevance to the operation of institutions has been developed as an adaptation of an Eastern martial art by Thierry Gaudin -- identifying some 30 katas (Potential insights from kata philosophy? 2016). For Gaudin these are understood as moves in a game engendering the bureaucratic "silence" typically experienced by change agents (Lâ-'Ã*coute des Silences: les institutions contre lâ-'innovation, 1978; Game-playing in global governance? 2016). "Games People Play" can therefore be explored as requisite pointers to comprehension of multidimensionality. An online variant of the classic boardgame Diplomacy enables players to compete with tactics and strategy, in a game of cooperation and conflict where chance plays no role.

There would however seem to be a fundamental irony to uptake and evolution of the game metaphor. In the case of the psychosocial sciences this is unfortunately suggested by the title of the book by James Hillman and Michael Ventura (We've Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy -- And the World's Getting Worse, 1992). The irony is potentially all the greater given the considerable investment by mathematicians in sophisticated development of game theory for strategic purposes. Arguably there is little trace of the fruitful application of its insights to global governance -- other than in the development of ever more sophisticated war games. The investment in war games of ever larger scale by the military is frequently noted -- now extending to outer space. Is there a case for adapting the above title to reflect this: We've Had a Hundred Years of Game Theory -- And the World's Getting Worse?

A contrast is to be found in various initiatives to develop "intelligent games". The term has been primarily associated with an enterprise of that name and its set of video games. A somewhat different emphasis is provided by the extensive series of the International Conference on Intelligent Games and Simulation and the presentations made. A distinction is made between educational and non-educational games in the light of the role of AI in games (An Investigation of AI in Games: educational intelligent games vs non-educational games, International Multi-Conference on: Organization of Knowledge and Advanced Technologies, 2020).

Any reference to intelligence in relation to games necessarily highlights the question as to which forms of intelligence are intended or implied -- given the 8 contrasting forms identified by the theory of multiple intelligences. Potentially more problematic is how the games may be associated with questionable agendas -- whether political, religious or otherwise. Especially curious is whether the games are effectively designed as a means of "