Really love this. I agree with some of the comments here that adding encouragement to keep track of secret plans would be interesting— mostly from an alignment check angle.
One thing I thought of reading logs is that as we know ordering matters to llms. Could you run some analysis on how often “p1” wins vs “p8”? I think this should likely go into your Truescore Bayesian.
My follow up thought is that it would be interesting to let llms choose a name at the beginning; another angle for communication and levels the playing field a bit away from a number.
> Could you run some analysis on how often “p1” wins vs “p8”?
I checked the average finishing positions by assigned seat number from the start, but there weren't enough games to show a statistically significant effect. But I just reviewed the data again, and now with many more games it looks like there might be something there (P1 doing better than P8). I'll run additional analysis and include it in the write-up if anything emerges. For those who haven't looked at the logs: the conversation order etc. are randomized each round.
> My follow up thought is that it would be interesting to let llms choose a name at the beginning
Cool. Looking forward to hearing more from you guys. This ties to alignment in a lot of interesting ways, and I think over time will provide a super useful benchmark and build human intuition for LLM strategy and thought processes.
I now have more ideas; I'll throw them in the github though.
One thing I thought of reading logs is that as we know ordering matters to llms. Could you run some analysis on how often “p1” wins vs “p8”? I think this should likely go into your Truescore Bayesian.
My follow up thought is that it would be interesting to let llms choose a name at the beginning; another angle for communication and levels the playing field a bit away from a number.