On 7/12/2016 1:52 PM, C. Berry wrote: > Yep, I remember that one. It's a fun idea, but I don't buy it. Anything > like "realistic" space combat is going to be all about reaction times > and data fusion, both things that computers are already much better than > than humans. There's a reason that the Phalanx anti-cruise-missile > defense system has to operate without a human in the loop, after all. > And as for randomness, a provably good pseudo-random number generator is > vastly better than a human. Humans are terrible > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law#Accounting_fraud_detection> > at behaving randomly. I've read that some successful professional poker > players looking to bluff some fraction of the time in a given situation > will glance at the second hand on their watches to make the decision -- > e.g., for a 1/3 chance, then bluff on seconds 0-19, no bluff on 20-59. Agreed. Putting a human back into the loop to "add randomness" is, in truth, just going to add slow, poor decisions. If for some insane reason I want that, I can have another subroutine simulate it. :p As noted in previous posts on this thread, it's just a excuse/effort to justify humans being involved in the process in some (any) capacity. -- --------------- Kelly St. Clair xxxxxx@efn.org
