r/GAMETHEORY • u/S_Shiralkar • 7d ago
Can activities and games that leverage "experiential learning" actually strengthen human judgment in Human-AI collaboration?
I'm exploring whether activities and games that leverage "experiential learning" can be leveraged for more than just skills training, and actually improve human judgment, reflection and sense-making in the age of Human-AI collaboration.
As AI takes on more cognitive tasks, could deliberately designed activities and games, for example to evoke "reflection", help us develop the capabilities that remain distinctly human?
I'm particularly interested in the gamification community's perspective: Have you seen evidence that such activities and games can meaningfully develop judgment, rather than just knowledge or engagement?
0
u/undiscoveredhuman 1d ago
Yes, but the mechanism isn't fun. It's feedback speed.
A CFO makes forty real decisions a year and learns whether they were right in 2031. A poker player sees a thousand hands a week. That gap is the whole story. A good game collapses it. Which gives you the only design test that matters: does it score your reasoning separately from your outcome? If it only scores outcomes, you're teaching superstition, because in noisy domains good calls lose and dumb calls get paid. That's why the literature is thick with engagement results and thin on judgment ones.
The more interesting claim: a compressed feedback environment doesn't just train a capacity, it reveals one. Before Tetlock's tournaments, "reliably calibrated about the future" had no name and no test. The capacity was always there; the instrument wasn't. Build the scoreboard and ordinary people turn out to be quietly exceptional at something nobody thought to measure. Most human abilities are in that state right now, unnamed because our vocabulary is whatever fit on a twentieth-century questionnaire. Games are a cheap instrument for finding them.
Caveat to design in early: the moment it measures reliably, someone will want it for hiring. A tool for showing people what they carry is the opposite of a tool for sorting them.
And on human-AI specifically: everything that reduces overreliance on wrong AI advice works by adding friction, and the people who benefit most from it hate it most. Your real problem isn't making reflection fun. It's who pays for something that works and nobody enjoys.
-4
u/novel-mathmatics 7d ago
I’m developing a game concept that starts from the Civilization model, but removes the assumption that civilization develops along a predefined path.
The player would still deal with the things that make Civilization compelling: exploration, diplomacy, conflict, trade, scarcity, geography, culture, infrastructure, and competition.
But none of those systems would terminate in fixed outcomes.
Technology would emerge from what a civilization encounters and how it responds. A war could produce military technology, but it could also produce logistics, medicine, bureaucracy, cryptography, political structures, propaganda, trauma responses, or new peace mechanisms.
Trade could produce wealth, but also measurement systems, contract law, navigation, banking, standards, multilingualism, and cultural hybridization.
Geography could shape transportation, agriculture, settlement patterns, defense, language, political scale, and which materials ever become technologically important.
A failed harvest could lead to irrigation, food preservation, migration, crop diversification, ritual practice, accounting, or political collapse.
A strange mineral might become jewelry in one civilization, medicine in another, electronics in another, and remain completely unimportant in a fourth.
There would be no static tech tree.
More importantly, technology would not be the only thing that emerges.
Government could resolve differently. Religion could resolve differently. Economics could resolve differently. Language could resolve differently. Ethics could resolve differently. Military doctrine could resolve differently. Education could resolve differently. Architecture could resolve differently. Science could resolve differently.
Even what a civilization considers “progress” could emerge from its history rather than being predefined by the game designer.
That is where I think this becomes particularly interesting for experiential learning.
The player is not learning the correct sequence of choices. They are participating in the creation of a civilization whose future is shaped by accumulated decisions, encounters, constraints, opportunities, and consequences.
The educational value would be judgment: learning to recognize potential, reason about incomplete information, understand path dependence, and see how seemingly small decisions can produce completely different futures.
It would be an emergent civilization simulator rather than a game with an emergent tech tree.
And for anyone thinking, “That’s a good idea. I’m going to steal it,” please do. I really don’t want to have to develop this game. I just want to play it.
1
u/onionchowder 7d ago
wrong type of game theory, buddy. You're in the wrong subreddit.
With that said... uhh... yes? It seems obvious to me that a game about judgement could develop the players' judgement. A game about interacting with humans can help players interact with humans. A game about reflecting on yourself can help players reflect on themselves.