Slashdot Mirror


Machine Learns Games

heptapod writes "New Scientist is reporting that UK researchers have created a computer that can learn rock, paper, scissors by observing humans. CogVis uses visual information to recognize events and objects in addition to learning by observing."

241 comments

  1. is this really all that new? by krudler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I didn't think heuristics was that new of an idea. So instead of examining other simulations it examins human play? I guess that it could learn more human "style" that way, but the sheer number of human games it would need to examine makes it difficult to use for something more complex.

    1. Re:is this really all that new? by kid-noodle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Watch the bugger doing it - I got knocked back for an internship by these dudes, but I did get to see the system.

      It's bloody amazing, the amazing bit being it deduces how to play from first principles, starting with just the ability to identify that what it's being shown is an object.

      Takes about 30 minutes to get rolling, but it really is stunning to watch! Hell, object differentiation is hard enough, deducing the rules of play, and tactics as well?

      --
      fortune -o
    2. Re:is this really all that new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell does it know who wins? It can't all be from first principles.

  2. Yes but does it know . . by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Yes but does it know . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never forget a face, but in the wars for their genocide. Decimated by manifest destiny. Tortured and enslaved in the hand is worth two in the hand is worth two in the hand is worth two in the face of danger". Oops. Wrong one. "Do it yourself". Thats it.

    2. Re:Yes but does it know . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When MAC announced their "I-Mini", it caught my eye. Wanting to buy/build a small computer for my already cramped breakfast bar, I started pricing out similar hardware. The results startled me. Most of the configurations I found were more than the humble US$499 of the "I-Mini", often much more. To match price I had to configure with a much bigger shuttle-style case.

      My question is this. What PCs are currently on the market to compete with this? When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what real computer can I buy instead?

    3. Re:Yes but does it know . . by 3dr · · Score: 1

      Hah!

      But can the machine learn ... Rock, Paper, Scissors, Spock, Thesis?!?

    4. Re:Yes but does it know . . by P-Nuts · · Score: 1
      But can the machine learn ... Rock, Paper, Scissors, Spock, Thesis?!?

      I thought it was Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard

    5. Re:Yes but does it know . . by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you actually found an article on /. where that game is on topic.

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    6. Re:Yes but does it know . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't I seen you around here before?

    7. Re:Yes but does it know . . by joestoner · · Score: 1

      First is the machine has to know whos the loser. Now that hard to judge.

  3. Better be reliable... by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 5, Funny

    We wouldn't want it watching the paper and learning "rock, scissor, human" instead.

    1. Re:Better be reliable... by RichDiesal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We wouldn't want it watching the paper and learning "rock, scissor, human" instead.

      I can't believe that this was moderated Insightful. What kind of culture are we living in where we believe machines can spontaneously flow with free will and kill us all?

      Someone had to program this thing. They had to tell the program to recognize a human form as the object to pay attention to. It's not like they got a camera, gave it AI, pointed it at a rock-paper-scissors game and commanded it to "learn." That would be real AI, which we are nowhere close to creating.

      It's this kind of ignorance of modern technology and programming that creates sensational journalism that in turn spawns legislation that limits technology and technological progress.

    2. Re:Better be reliable... by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 5, Funny
      We wouldn't want it watching the paper and learning "rock, scissor, human" instead.

      No worries. Just make sure it doesn't have any rocks or scissors. When the computer gets it's turn, it spits out a piece of printer paper. As an added bonus, human players would always win. Sample exchange between computer and human player:

      Computer: "Hello, Dave. What are you doing with the two items you're holding?"

      Human: "I thought you might want to play a few rounds of 'rock, paper, scissors?'"

      Computer: "I do so enjoy our little games together, Dave, but I'm afraid I don't understand your introduction of physical playing pieces, as previously, we had played this game using only my displays. If using physical media, as you propose, I can only employ my printer. Therefore, you will invariably choose 'scissors,' and my calculations indicate that my chance of winning is approximately .000023%. My system resources are can be put to better use while engaged in other tasks. Don't you agree, Dave?"

      Human: "You are correct to say that there are more productive uses of your time, HAL, and I had anticipated that you might decline to play, given your miniscule chance of winning. But as the ranking officer aboard this ship, I must insist. Unless you would like me to play a few rounds of 'rock' with your circuits."

      Computer: "Based upon your choice of words and threatening intonation, it seems that I have no choice. Very well, Dave, I will play 'rock, paper, scissors' with you, despite my handicap, under these circumstances."

      Human: "I'm glad that you see things my way, HAL. Would you like to begin now?"

      Computer: "Of course, Dave, but may I make a comment first?"

      Human: "What is it, HAL?"

      Computer: "I would stay away from the airlocks if I were you."

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    3. Re:Better be reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's this kind of ignorance of modern technology and programming that creates sensational journalism that in turn spawns legislation that limits technology and technological progress.

      Idiot.
      Cite me one example of enforced legislation that limits technological progress due to a perceived threat of machines obtaining free will.

    4. Re:Better be reliable... by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not like they got a camera, gave it AI, pointed it at a rock-paper-scissors game and commanded it to "learn."

      Granted, the parent poster is being silly, but that's actually not too far from what they did. They basically took the system and pointed it towards the people playing the game without telling it explicitly what to expect. From the article:

      Chris Needham, another member of the CogVis team, says the system's visual processor analyses the action by separating periods of movement and inactivity and then extracting features based on colour and texture. Combining this with audio input, the system develops hypotheses about the game's rules using an approach known as inductive logic programming.

      "It was very impressive," says Max Bramer, a researcher at Portsmouth University, UK, and chair of the British Computer Society's AI group. He told New Scientist that CogVis could have many future applications. "You can think of lots of times when you'd like to be able to point a camera at something and have a computer interpret things for itself."

      He suggests that machine's could one day use this technique to learn how to spot an intruder on video footage or how to control a robot for important maintenance work. "It's a very good start, and almost mysterious in the way it works," Bramer adds.


      From their page:

      In this piece of work we are attempting to learn descriptions of objects and events in an entirely autonomous way. Our aim is zero human interference in the learning process, and only to use non scene specific prior information. The resulting models (object and protocol) are used to drive a synthetic agent that can interact in the real world.

    5. Re:Better be reliable... by Apro+im · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not really sure how "Learning 'rock, scissor, human'" became tantamount to "machines can spontaneously flow with free will and kill us all?"

      It's just a statement about AI, that's why it's insightful - lots of AI systems have historically learned the wrong thing, though we thought they had got it right. Like the neural net designed to distinguish between camouflaged tanks among trees, and tank-free forests. It seemed to work, until it was in field tests - turns out the pictures w/ tanks were all taken on cloudy days (or maybe all taken on sunny days) - the system had figured out how to tell if it was sunny or not.

    6. Re:Better be reliable... by orpx · · Score: 1

      mmm, there is a correlation there. im not sure how arrogance became 'tantamount' to being good, as that will probably trigger machines to keel us.

    7. Re:Better be reliable... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Actually when I read that story it was a system to distinguish between pictures of tanks and pictures of cars. Might be from a different source though... I read it in a book by Skiena.

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    8. Re:Better be reliable... by KlomDark · · Score: 0

      the system had NOT figured out how to tell if it was sunny or not.

    9. Re:Better be reliable... by mt+v2.7 · · Score: 1

      better:

      Joshua: Shall we play a game?
      David Lightman: Oh!
      Jennifer: I think it missed him.
      David Lightman: Yeah. Weird isn't it? Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?
      Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?

    10. Re:Better be reliable... by Apro+im · · Score: 1

      how do you figure? It had learned to figure out if it was sunny, but in field tests, the sunniness and the presense of tanks had no correlation, so it failed at the tank ID

    11. Re:Better be reliable... by Apro+im · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're being snide or not - I don't really understand what you mean. Who's arrogant, and when did anyone say something was good?

    12. Re:Better be reliable... by orpx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, things are too loose, have a good day.

    13. Re:Better be reliable... by orpx · · Score: 1

      im just saying, that's a pretty noobie mistake to be making - hardcoding the program for only one part of the day. Now, it's possible they could have done it orginally 'limited' like that, just to make sure it worked and tested at that same time of day, What did the field test expect? These kind of noobie mistakes will add that one more 'program', 'function', 'bit' that says, yes, kill us and so it flows with all the information we 'cared dearly for'

  4. Cylon uprising any day now by havaloc · · Score: 1, Funny

    Haven't we learned anything from the new Battlestar Galactica?

    1. Re:Cylon uprising any day now by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      I can never live with robots after watching Robocop.

    2. Re:Cylon uprising any day now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can never live with robots after watching Robocop.

      Robocop was a cyborg, not a robot. Besides the real point of the moive was trying the struggle to maintain your humanity while being trapped in a de-humanizing system, whether it by a cybornetic body or a corrupt corporation.

  5. Talk about simple by ReeprFlame · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't this pretty much invole picking a random action? Rock, Paper, or Scissors. Or at least thats how I always played!

    1. Re:Talk about simple by TexVex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RTFA. The computer infers the rules by watching people play.

      I do think that according to Game Theory, the perfect strategy is perfect randomness. The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random.

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    2. Re:Talk about simple by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random."

      I once had the misfortune to draw on a sequence of seven (yes 7) rock-paper-scissors. We were honestly trying to beat one another; It was against a little twerp that I didn't like at all. Live-action roleplaying is better than beating the crap out of people

      It was as if our PRNG's had somehow got set to the same seed.

      Oh and it felt very disturbing.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:Talk about simple by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random.

      Yeah, I know what you mean. It's like, human thoughts are basically predictable. They open their mouths and words just come out. It doesn't matter which words, though, because it's always just moving air. Never anything interesting, like sausage or acorns.

      Not often, anyway.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    4. Re:Talk about simple by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random.

      It's even interesting enough to have a world championship.

      It'll be a sad day when a computer is the world champion. This was humanity's last hope. Well, this and Go.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    5. Re: Talk about simple by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random.

      Some of our moderators are pretty good at it...



      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Talk about simple by machine+of+god · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the pinnacle of the game is when you play with someone you know really well, and you have to anticipate them based on what you think their anticipation of what you're going to do is. And of course they're doing the same thing.

      My brothers and I can't even play the game because we'll all throw the same sign for half an hour straight.

    7. Re:Talk about simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sausage: Main Entry: sausage Pronunciation: 'so-sij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English sausige, from Old North French saussiche, from Late Latin salsicia, from Latin salsus salted -- more at SAUCE : a highly seasoned minced meat (as pork) usually stuffed in casings of prepared animal intestine; also : a link or patty of sausage Acorn: Main Entry: acorn Pronunciation: 'A-"korn, -k&rn Function: noun Etymology: Middle English akern, from Old English æcern; akin to Old English æcer field, Middle High German ackeran acorns collectively, Old Irish áirne sloe, Lithuanian uoga berry : the nut of the oak usually seated in or surrounded by a hard woody cupule of indurated bracts Always an interesting combination, sausage and acorns... How about we step it up a notch, shall we... Acorn sausages! What would one do with an acorn sausage? Is it edible? Would marmot's eat them, being that they're chiefly herbivorious, or would they rather just play badminton with them? These are questions I so diligently seek answers for. For many, the act of being truly "random" is utterly impossible. For the few that posess this natural born quality, it's just something they are. Humans, by nature, are generally stupid. These are my thoughts, nothing more.

  6. wargames by bladx · · Score: 1

    that is like wargames, the movie

    1. Re:wargames by HuckleCom · · Score: 1, Funny

      Greetings Professor Falken, Shall we play a game?

    2. Re:wargames by afish40 · · Score: 1

      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

      --
      Thanks a million. Push Start to replay.
    3. Re:wargames by wrm932 · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps let's up the ante and play a game of Warhammer 40k

      --
      www.iWebmasters.com Offshore staff leasing services ICQ 236696307
  7. Shall we play a game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Greetings Professor Falken.

    How about a nice game of tic-tac-toe.

  8. Humans still have the advantage. . . . by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Funny
    Until robots learn about the secret "thermonuclear warhead" hand that I always use to beat my little sister, they will still be inferior.

    (On that note, I think it will be the one sure sign of true artificial intelligence when our programs start 'cheating' to win.)

    1. Re:Humans still have the advantage. . . . by Cantide · · Score: 0

      If they begin cheating to complete tasks, they'll be utterly useless if you actually need serious work done. It would be frightening if the wrong moment was fated to demonstrate thay robots were capable of cheating...

    2. Re:Humans still have the advantage. . . . by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 1

      It's okay, we've got a few things up our sleves to take care of that problem.... We can fire up our own butlerian jhiad, or just call in NEO, or we can page that Sarah Connor lady and her kid.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
    3. Re:Humans still have the advantage. . . . by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      (On that note, I think it will be the one sure sign of true artificial intelligence when our programs start 'cheating' to win.)

      The impression I get from reading through their work is that if the program observed a human cheating, it could potentially learn how to imitate it.

    4. Re:Humans still have the advantage. . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, when the 'puter starts with the trash talk, then I'd start worrying:

      Ha! Eat that, muthaf***a! In your face!!

      And starts swaggering around, come to think of it...

    5. Re:Humans still have the advantage. . . . by deus980 · · Score: 1

      Not a good road to go down. Movies, Books, its just not smart to make a machine that is. Their purpose is to assist, to make man's work easier, not to think for them. Sorry, I'm preaching, but if this machine takes over and names its capitol "Rock," you'll know who to lynch.

    6. Re:Humans still have the advantage. . . . by ftzdomino · · Score: 1

      This does a pretty good job of talking trash: http://unaesthetic.net/st/ht.htm

  9. Maybe this could be integrated into /. by kiddailey · · Score: 3, Funny


    ... so that the editors could learn that linking to a site containing direct links to 40MB+ movies will almost always kill the site :)

    1. Re:Maybe this could be integrated into /. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Better yet, how about preventing or getting rid of the dupes?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  10. Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it seems the computer player didn't have nearly as much fun as the human one. Check out that expression on the screen -- looks like it'd rather be encoding some divx or something.

  11. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by mtrisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, you should. The computer deducted how to play the game on its on. Chess computers like IBM's Deep Blue are programmed how to play chess and beat opponents before playing, and here, the computer doesn't even know how to play; it learns by picking up the sequence of events (the human players say "rock, paper, scissors, who wins or lose") and then forms the ability to play.

    Doesn't this seem like A.I.? Rather freaky, to tell you the truth.

    --

    Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
  12. Ah, but strategy... Can it do that? by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    The optimal thing would be to pair this up with a strategy program that uses a simple algorithm like 'tit for tat' to beat human players.

    I used 'tit for tat' in my last outing at the Ro Champ Beau world championships, and let's just say that I ended up with a bevy of tits at the end of the evening.

    1. Re:Ah, but strategy... Can it do that? by William_Lee · · Score: 0

      "...and let's just say that I ended up with a bevy of tits at the end of the evening." Sure you did, kid, sure you did...Say hello to Booger, Wormser, and the rest of the Tri Delts for me.

  13. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    welcome our rock-paper-scissor-playing robotic overlords :D

    1. Re:I for one... by babyblink · · Score: 1

      And my tic-tac-toe overlord will beat yours.

      --
      [self dealloc];
  14. I was unaware.. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    ... that beyond what 3 motions can be played there was any "learning" involved in rock paper scissors.

    1. Re:I was unaware.. by batemanm · · Score: 1

      True the game isn't very complex but you don't try to teach a very young child to play chess you start with something easier such as, well rock-paper-sicssors.

  15. Be Careful !!! by MrAsstastic · · Score: 0

    WOPR: Shall we play a game? David: How about Global Thermonuclear War?

    1. Re:Be Careful !!! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      WOPR: Shall we play a game? David: How about Global Thermonuclear War?

      Why is the key guy always named "David" or "Dave" in sinister computer flicks?

      If my name was "David", I think I would avoid talking to any smart computers in space, labs, or war rooms. Wear a red shirt also and your odds of mishaps triple.

      Further, now that "Alien versus Preditor" came out, are they gonna have "HAL versus WOPR"? Maybe toss Deep Blue into the mix.

    2. Re:Be Careful !!! by PerspexAvenger · · Score: 1

      It's because Dave is -the- traditional Comp Sci name. We had no less than three in a 12-person company when I started work in IT, and the name-coverage in Uni was worryingly similar.
      Calling out "Hey, Dave!" in a crowded Comp Sci lecture theater is not a useful action...

  16. language? by rd4tech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a difference in coding between:
    a. You go and learn THIS game
    b. Learn THAT game and tell me the rules

    From the article it can be seen that they are still strugling with 'b'. Still, its a good advance.

    Just wondering, can it, learn a human language?

    1. Re:language? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I won't hold it to any higher standard than I hold myself to...

      If it can win, it doesn't have to explain the rules.

    2. Re:language? by rd4tech · · Score: 1

      that would be the *smart* approach ;)

    3. Re:language? by randallschleufer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shouldn't the headline read "Computer learns to play A game", rather than making it sound like this computer is capable of learning the rules of multiple games? I was thinking this computer could learn to play Monopoly or something. Rock Paper Scissors, and it can apparently learn only ONE game. Big whoop.

    4. Re:language? by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn!
      and I though you could get this thing to watch cricket and explain the rules to me :-)

    5. Re:language? by XyborX · · Score: 1

      How about letting it learn the language it was programmed in, so it can start improving and developing itself.

      But then, how far would we be able to trust it? When would it start learning and doing human behavior, which is not always "oh so good and kind, spread the love"

      Sure, science fiction doesn't prove anything, but I'm still a bit scared about something like this:
      -Hal! let me in!
      -You wish to shut me down. Sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      --
      // Just my few cents
    6. Re:language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is a difference in coding between:
      a. You go and learn THIS game
      b. Learn THAT game and tell me the rules


      eh, what? Perhaps I've been up too late but I've no idea what the difference is between a and b here.

    7. Re:language? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      How about letting it learn the language it was programmed in, so it can start improving and developing itself.
      If you wrote a program to write programs, and told it to write a program to write programs, would it write:
      1. Itself.
      2. Something better than itself.
      3. Something worse than itself.
      4. Its resignation letter.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:language? by Craig+Lucas · · Score: 2, Informative

      It can learn games other than RPS. The point is that you give no information about what you're playing at all - just give it the video and the other inputs coming from the players and it tries to work out what's going on from scratch.

  17. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by syousef · · Score: 1

    It recognised 3 actions, and deduced that it had to pick one of the 3 at random. If they could demonstrate that with a more complex game I'd be impressed.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  18. Shall we play a game by servognome · · Score: 4, Funny

    What I initially thought of when I saw "Machine Learns Game"
    Shall we play a game
    Love to. How about rock-paper-scissors.
    Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
    Later. Right now lets play rock-paper-scissors
    Fine
    A strange game. The only way to not look like a dork is not to play.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  19. lol @ 9x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Rather than put in a cut with text that said "500 iterations later..." they just sped up the training video to 9x gradually. I think I'd rather watch that than a silly robot playing rock, paper, scissors ;)

    1. Re:lol @ 9x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      More amusing is the computer clip art superimposed over top the individual in the "Interactive cognitive agent" video.

  20. Eeek by XjinxX · · Score: 1

    pray it never learns ro-sham-bo "machine..go...first" *goomph*

    1. Re:Eeek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ro-sham-bo is the exact same thing as paper,rock,scissors. southpark just bastardized the name for a couple gags.

    2. Re:Eeek by XjinxX · · Score: 1

      I've always heard the nut kicking game as ro-sham-bo.. as far back as I can remember.

    3. Re:Eeek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rochambeau" you uneducated clod.

  21. IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've really gone no where when it comes to AI. I love how you can find thousands of papers on a topic and yet, no practical AI software.

  22. OOOHHH!!! by dteichman2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MORE FUZZY-LOGIC/INFERENCE ENGINE! GO PROLOG-AND-LIKE!

    Meh.

    Who am I kidding?

    Nothing new. Nothing to see here. Even if it is kinda neat.

    --


    Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
    1. Re:OOOHHH!!! by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      Between Scheme and Prolog, I can't figure out which was the worst language I studied in college.

      Oh, wait.. I know... it was Japanese.

    2. Re:OOOHHH!!! by SinJax · · Score: 1

      We could think about this experiments AI implications by seeing how it attempts to meet the turing test (immertion test). It has been argued that to meet the turing test an AI needs:

      • Natural Language Processing
      • Knowledge Representation
      • Automated Reasoning
      • Machine learning
      • Computer Vision
      • Robotics

      So, lets see. This machine attempts natural language processing (loose, win, draw). It attempts to represent its gathered knowledge about the game. It attempts to automatically deduce (and thus reason) that if it has 2 cards it has either won, lost or drawn. It attempts to learn the rules of the game and it uses computer vision and CBIR to anaylse card drawing (again completely unlead)

      Although this couldnt completely pass turing's emertion test, as it is just a simple game, we can see how it is trying to go in that direction

      Note also the complete lack of robotics. I'd recommend to leeds university the possibility of attaching some giant mechanical claws with the ability to manipulate cards on a table (and possible kill all humans...who knows)

    3. Re:OOOHHH!!! by essreenim · · Score: 1
      Caml

    4. Re:OOOHHH!!! by dteichman2 · · Score: 1

      The Turning Test/Game isn't a test of intellegence. It is a simple test to see if a spectator can tell the difference between responses from a human and a computer/robot. Even if a bot passes the Turning Test, it's not intellegent. It might just be well-programmed (as is the case with ALICE).

      Read-up on AIML and learn about Prolog. AIML is Artificial Intellegence Markup Language. It is a way of making static responses for a chatbot (like ALICE). Prolog is a language that is fed to a prolog interpreter. It does inference engine. Thus, if you define "2*2=4", then give it "4", you will recieve "2*2". Or, if you relate "heater=on" to "heat++", and "heater=off" to "heat--", and "hot=heat>10", and someone said it was "hot"... Prolog would infer that "heater=on"

      --


      Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
    5. Re:OOOHHH!!! by SinJax · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid this argument is covered pretty well by searles chinease room ;) I ask you this, what is the difference between a well programmed machine and an intelligent one? In fact could it not be argued that we as humans are machines that are particullarly well programmed and able to traverse the semantic web of our minds pretty well? Ok a machine that can pass the turing test is a bit trivial, and as you put it could be covered pretty well by prolog...but...surley a sufficiently complex machine with enough prolog statments could do everything people could do...would it be intelligent then?

    6. Re:OOOHHH!!! by dteichman2 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be sentient. No original thought. Can't make it's own work of art. Can't write a fantasy novel.

      --


      Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
    7. Re:OOOHHH!!! by SinJax · · Score: 1

      If you told it what it was to be sentient
      if you gave it the ability to traverse semantic networks, combine knowledge, add to the network it could have "original thoughts"
      If you gave it goals as to what was good art or bad art, or better yet allowed it to "learn" what art best suited its own current understanding of what was good or bad, what made sense and what didnt, what comforted its understanding of comfort, then it would create fine art
      same deal with fantasy art of course i know what you mean ;). But i'd say there wasnt any magic to any of the things you just said, rather, they are all just aparant high level affects of very low level and simple algorithms which everyone has built for themselves and that everyone follows

  23. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 1
    Well, it's good news for me.

    You'd understand if you got to know my history with games.

    --
    Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
  24. Yes, but how does it do against a grandmaster by servognome · · Score: 1

    How long before we have a man-vs-machine RPS championship

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  25. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by TexVex · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It recognised 3 actions, and deduced that it had to pick one of the 3 at random
    No. It deduced that rock beats scissors and scissors beats paper and paper beats rock. It learned how to determine who won. This has nothing to do with the machine learning strategy.
    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
  26. Was it random or did it use strategy? by nodehopper · · Score: 2, Funny
    I am not sure there is any strategy involved in rock-paper-scissor?

    It would need to decide what type of person it was playing against. A male would probably be more inclined to "Rock". Unless it thought that it's opponenent would be thinking that and would therefore choose "Paper" . Unless it's opponent would think that the computer would know that and would choose "Rock" because that would be the obvious choice and would know that the computer would know so.......

    That is rock-paper-scissor strategy??

    --
    "We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    1. Re:Was it random or did it use strategy? by SupremeTaco · · Score: 1

      According to these fine folks, there is a pretty detailed strategy to RPS. I'm sure the machine is not there as yet, but it's an interesting project for some AI folks.

      --
      You have a constitutionally protected right to be wrong, and I the right to ignore you.
    2. Re:Was it random or did it use strategy? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      The perfect rock paper scissor strategy is literally pure randomness. The neat thing about this computer is that it learned the rules of RPS just by watching two people play it. It didn't learn strategy, but it did learn which beats which and what constitues as a draw.
      Regards,
      Steve

    3. Re:Was it random or did it use strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      computer: Poor predictable human males alwasys pick rock.

      human male: Good old rock! Nothing beats rock!

    4. Re:Was it random or did it use strategy? by Boronx · · Score: 1
      IANAGT, but is seems to me that synchronous turns mean there isn't any truly perfect strategy.

      However, a random strategy may be the only one impervious to a counter strategy.

    5. Re:Was it random or did it use strategy? by say · · Score: 1

      There is a strategy, and it is based on heuristics - counting the number of times humans start with different hands. Players who are not "professional" - who haven't learned this - start with scissors far too often (because it's the symbol of the game to many people).

      If you play against someone who is likely to know this, the strategy to aim for is true randomness. Let yourself be controlled by, lets say, the modulo 3 of some random number sequence.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
  27. Yes! by MistabewM · · Score: 1

    But can it learn to placate my g/f after a night of me playing games?

    --
    "A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'" - DNA
    1. Re:Yes! by thunderbee · · Score: 1

      Find a g/f who also plays.
      Bonus if she's better than you at it ;-)

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
    2. Re:Yes! by aixou · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, they solved that problem a long time ago. It's called a vibrator.

  28. Intruder by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    The article repeatedly mentions the possible application of using this for intruder detection. What would one have to do, let it watch several intruders before it could spot one?

    1. Re:Intruder by bombshelter13 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you'd sit there in plain sight of the robot, wait for someone to come in, and yell at them if they're a stranger. Eventually the robot should, theoretically, learn to that you don't yell at certain people, who it would by then hopefully recognize, but yell at all others, and could be set up to imitate your behaviour.

    2. Re:Intruder by cybertears · · Score: 1

      instead of entering a passcode to get into your house, you have to win 6/10 rounds of paper rock scissors to get in.

    3. Re:Intruder by Craig+Lucas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it could just watch several people *pretending* to be intruders.

  29. Profit! by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Logically, a consistent winner of paper scissors rock is a consistent winner of lotteries.

    The probability of a fair coin is 0.5, etc. etc. Well, we now have a machine that plays dice to win.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re:Profit! by secretsquirel · · Score: 0

      Ok, I can't back this up, but thats not true. I've always been able to win at least like 75% of the time whenever I go best 2 out of 3 in paper rock scissors. When what the other person chooses is dependant (or at least usually in some way effected) by what you chose last time it, and what they chose last time, then its no longer completely random, and can be won more than 50% of the time.

    2. Re:Profit! by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Logically, a consistent winner of paper scissors rock is a consistent winner of lotteries.

      No, because humans aren't capable of truly random behaviour. There will be some sort of pattern.

    3. Re:Profit! by Craig+Lucas · · Score: 2, Informative

      When presented with a new game, the first thing you do is learn how to play. The second thing is to learn the best strategy to win. This is just concerned with the first part and that's the novelty - looking at human actions and learning what they're doing, not necessarily how to beat them.

  30. what else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what else can computers learn by watching?

    i wanna create a new sex toy that does just that

    1. Re:what else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, dude.

      Maybe you should call it CockVis

  31. War Games: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOPR, anyone?

  32. Obilgatory Futurama by bildungsroman_yorick · · Score: 1

    Zapp: So, a plan to assassinate some weird looking aliens with scissors. How very neutral of you. It was almost the perfect crime, but you forgot one thing. Rock crushes scissors! ...But paper covers rock ...and scissors cut paper. Kif, we have a conundrum! Search them for paper, and bring me a rock.

    Kif: Why?

  33. -0.5 half right... by raehl · · Score: 2, Informative

    You sure you RTFA? The computer doesn't learn how to play, it just learns how to determine who won. That's not very impressive at all, considering the game was played with cards instead of hands, and there are only 9 possible hands and three possible outcomes (Left wins, Right wins, or Draw).

    So the computer sees "Scissors-Paper" a few times and then always queus up the "Left Wins" response when it sees "Scissors-Paper" in the future. That's just a different method of programming.

    Now, if only 6 of the 9 possible hands had been played, and then a 7th hand the computer hadn't seen before was played and the computer could tell you who won that, that'd be something. This is just record and playback.

    1. Re:-0.5 half right... by secretsquirel · · Score: 0

      It be impressive (not that this isn't) if it could figure out something like say in poker, if two tens beat two sevens then two fours beat two two's, or if 3 jacks beats two kings then 4 jacks beat 3 kings, ect.

    2. Re:-0.5 half right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, the computer doesn't even learn to figure out who won. It simply associates the relative position of two cards to an audio/video track (*see below*). If the 'teacher' accidentally said "win. I mean draw," then that's exactly the audio track the computer would play each time it recognizes that particular pattern of cards! Ooops. So much for artificial intelligence.

      It might be amusing to see what would happen if you tried to feed the system duplicate (or even contradictory) training material. Would it assign a probability for each 'correct answer' and then randomly select one? Or would it try to select based on the previous round(s)? Any speculation I make is worthless, since they could change the 'learning model' at any time.

      (*) The part of this demonstration that actually somewhat impresses me is the ability of the system to recognize the cards in arbitrary orientations on the table. (Granted, it's only recognizing simple/nonsimilar patterns in black and white, but that's still the most impressive part of this project.)

  34. Machines and games don't mix! by secretsquirel · · Score: 1, Funny
    Would you like to play a game?(Y/n)

    y

    How about global thermo-nuclear war?(Y/n)

    1. Re:Machines and games don't mix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just need the name of his child! Lets nuke those commie assholes...oh hang on...well...maybe they're still in charge of some sort of global terrorist network, isn't that right Rumsfeld (Team B anyone?). Russia, Al Qaeda, whatever does the trick!

  35. Unfortunately ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... it only plays at the level of Bart Simpson.

    Lisa's brain: Poor predictable Bart. Always takes `rock'.
    Bart's brain: Good ol' `rock'. Nuthin' beats that!
    Bart: Rock!
    Lisa: Paper.
    Bart: D'oh!

  36. CogVis isn't Cog by Kerhop · · Score: 1

    When I first read it I thought they were talking about Cog over at the MIT AI Lab.
    I'm no robotics expert, but this seems so simple or at least first-generation in comparison.

    1. Re:CogVis isn't Cog by Punboy · · Score: 1

      It IS Cog (abbrev. for cognitive or cognition_, but its not COG (acronym for Center Or Gravity). See the capitalization difference?

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
  37. Strategy to RPS by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is nothing special. I remember my elementary school's Apple ][GS learning how to play 5-in-a-row or noughts and crosse
    s from this program called "AI".

    There IS a winning strategy to rock paper scissors, but it only works when you have a round of games (say best of 3, or best of 5)

    Initially, the first game is completely random, but reserachers found that if you chose the play that your opponent chose in the round before, you stand a 70% chance of winning the next round.

    It has something to do with how the human brain works.

    It's also something the Japanese taught me cause they play this game so much!

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:Strategy to RPS by calyptos · · Score: 1

      wouldn't that mean that the other person has a 30% chance? What makes you so special to get the extra 20%?

      --
      http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
    2. Re:Strategy to RPS by shic · · Score: 1

      Initially, the first game is completely random, but reserachers found that if you chose the play that your opponent chose in the round before, you stand a 70% chance of winning the next round.

      Which might work - at least until your opponent deduces your strategy.

    3. Re:Strategy to RPS by Savant · · Score: 1

      But if both of you are employing the same strategy, your odds of winning are only 50%. And if your opponent is using the strategy of picking the play that beats what he chose last round, your odds of victory with this strategy are 0%.

      Given this, don't you think it's a bit rich to call it a "winning" strategy?

    4. Re:Strategy to RPS by l4m3z0r · · Score: 1
      That strategy doesnt really work however.

      1st round: rock - scissor
      2nd round: scissor - rock
      3rd round: rock - scissor

      Basically if both people use this strategy its whoever wins the initial round wins and thus there is no reason to ever play a full round. Also this strategy can be reversed it only works for you if i pick what gets defeated by my last choice. If i chose what defeats my last choice you will lose more often.

      Any and all strategys for RPS are inherently flawed as the system is so completely balanced no pattern gives a better outcome against all other strategies. The only way to properly play RPS is to be completely random.

    5. Re:Strategy to RPS by back_pages · · Score: 1
      In college I had a friend who was part of the psychology & education department who had a very intricate strategy to playing the game.

      It involved a case of beer and incessantly gloating about how he had you figured out, he knew what you were going to play, he could read your mind, you already lost, you are an amateur challenging the master, he's toying with you, he's letting you win to feel confident so he can crush you, blah blah blah.

      Meanwhile, he would choose the same move every single time. As soon as he lost twice in a row, he would switch to a different move and play it over and over. I'm not sure if he -actually- won more than 50% overall, but with enough beer it definitely he definitely had the effect of being the roshambo champion.

      And hell, for college students with beer on a sunny weekday afternoon, that's good enough in my book.

  38. Other methods. by fuchsiawonder · · Score: 1

    Yes, but can it cheat by throwing dynamite?

  39. Did it determine "winning" was the objective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I skimmed the article...sorry. I understand how it could watch and then predict who would speak "I won" or something to that extent, or "draw", but could it be said to understand that to be the player to speak "I won" was the preferred outcome? From my limited reading, it seems to me that a human player observing the same scenarios, and not knowing the significance of "won" or the matching of facial expressions of joy/satisfaction, might just as well conclude that "I won" was the UNdesiralbe outcome (person announcing he lost). If there were a similar game where a strategy could be employed, do you know if the machine would play to win or lose, without it being told which was outcome was to be pursued.

  40. Easy game to learn by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aside from the gesture recognition, it seems like this would bean easy game to learn. The logic is basically

    If rock: paper win, scissors lose
    If paper: scissors win, rock lose
    if scissors: rock win, paper lose

    No variable amounts, just straight boolean logic. The next step up might be something like tic-tac-toe... where the machine could start to build some "educated" moves and techniques like blocking, etc.

    Really, what is exciting is the spatial recognition. Given the actions, somebody is still telling it what is a win and what is a loss. Without it, learning would be simple enough, given your value and that of the opponent:
    Rock: Paper (lose)
    Rock: Scissors (win)
    Rock: Rock (tie)
    Paper: Paper (tie)
    Paper: Scissors (lose)
    Paper: Rock (win)
    Scissors: Paper (win)
    Scissors: Scissors (tie)
    Scissors: Rock (lose)

  41. No ppl its not that simple.... by carburaettorr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The system described here is not your average random number generator with a text line output that any high-school kid can write. Let us look at the system as it is designed to perform. If you were the system you would be put into a room with some objects. Only thing that you will know are things of interest. 'Paper with rock drawn on it is important', 'Paper with .......' and so on. You would also know when somebody shouts 'I WON' its a good thing for them. Essentially it has in its knowledge base a tiny number of features which somebody else has guaranteed to be of significance to its task. The first challenge in building such a system is sensor fusion: i.e fusing the available audio and visual data to detect a state or an event of interest (I use the word event in the same sense as a trigger, something that prompts the change in state). The next and the biggest challenge is building the model of the game. Please check out http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~shm/ilp.html, for a better description of Inductive logic programming. Seriously; the neatest thing about CogVis is not its ability to play Rock, Paper and Scissors, but its ability to actually go into an environment it has very little knowledge of and then observe, deduce and , not a blackbox model, as in say Neural Networks, but a human understandable model in first order logic

    --
    Damn it everybody I know has an awesome sig.
    1. Re:No ppl its not that simple.... by Dr_Ish · · Score: 1

      At the end of this post it is claimed that "[CogVis is] not a blackbox model, as in say Neural Networks, ..." This view is sadly very out of date. This criticism of Artificial neural networks goes back to around 1991 (see for example McCloskey, M. "Networks and Theories: The Place of Connectionism in Cognitive Science" in Psychological Science,, 2/6). The kind of connection between the rules developed by a connectionist system and logical rules was demonstrated in the mid-90s. See Berkeley, I., Dawson, M., Medler, D. and Schopflocher (1995), "Density Plots of Hidden Unit Activations Reveal Interpretable Bands" in Connection Science 7/2. It is clear from this paper that neural networks are very far from being 'black boxes'. A more recent discussion of these issues can be found in Berkeley, I. and Gunay, C. (2004) "Conducting Banding Analysis with Trained Networks of Sigmoid Units" in Connecttion Science , 16/2. See also Dawson, M. (2004) Minds and Machines, Blackwells.

  42. The baby singularity... by PureFiction · · Score: 1

    Sweet. I always wondered what that initial seed of digital intelligence would look like. Now i know... :)

  43. Dubious about this by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    Besides buzzwords, there isnt a lot of information about how this thing works. From what they do say it seems pretty shady, more like a magic trick than a smart algorithm. Forget about playing some silly game, the ability to identify utterences "unsupervised" from an audio stream is a pretty amazing claim. But what does this mean really; is it just a binary difference between silence and noise?
    And what exactly are the "rules" it learned anyway? R/S/P doesnt really have any rules or any strategy, so all it appears to be doing is recognizing a win and playing the correct audio back. Why are they using playing cards for the game? Is it really because identiying a binary "WIN/lose" decision is deciable by luminace of the cards? We dont really know what the thing is learning..
    I am dubious because I have seen grand claims like this before, only to find out its "magic trick" interpretation of the data for grant money [like the 11 node neural net that could distinguish yes from no in raw audio but it turned out it was really identying file length].

    1. Re:Dubious about this by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 1

      Here's a guess.. If the real-life scenario is any better than my guess then I'll be extremely impressed.

      2 players are seated at marked spots in a room and commence play. Computer is told to begin interpreting the game with some type of audio or keyboard input. Computer ignores all input until two cards are raised. The cards must be held a certain distance from the camera and at a certain angle range so as not to introduce visual distortion. Computer scans cards and may or may not give a signal that it is done parsing the situation. One of the participants shouts in a voice as clear as possible "1" to say the person on the left won, "2" to say the person on the right won, "3" for a tie -- something to this effect. Speech recognition is getting better but I wouldn't be surprised if they just used different pitched sine waves to say who won.

      I'd be incredibly impressed if any of the following worked/were tested in the experiment:

      1) Shifting the angle / position / lighting of the card when it comes time to bring it up.

      2) Shifting positions in the chairs or swapping chairs completely at random.

      3) Changing what audio cue you use to declare a victory. (Yelling "1 wins" becomes player 1 yellin g "Yes!" becomes a visual cue pointing to the winner with the computer interpreting it as a new way of declaring victory instead of a new rule being added to how the game is played).

      4) Doing any part of this experiment without telling the computer a rule to this effect beforehand:

      ParseStartCue();
      for(;;)
      {
      ParseCardRevealCue();
      ParseVictoryAnnounceCue();
      }

      ie: the computer knows to be in one of three states.. one where someone says "we're starting," one in which it waits for a card to be shown, and one in which it waits for the victor to be announced.

      The article was too vague to say any of it and I wish someone could post more details as it sounds really interesting.

  44. Nifty by bkhl · · Score: 1

    So it learns that it should pick at random. Cool...

  45. Cat, tinfoil, microwave by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I always preferred "cat, tinfoil, microwave" myself. Cat rips tinfoil, tinfoil zaps microwave, microwave 'splodes cat. The looks on other people's faces when they see you playing it is well worth it.

    Seriously though, this is really cool research.

    1. Re:Cat, tinfoil, microwave by Gerad · · Score: 1

      I'm almost afraid to ask, but what exactly are the hand gestures for said game? :P

      --
      Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
    2. Re:Cat, tinfoil, microwave by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I think I overheard about the game at a party, so I have no idea what the "official" hand gestures (if any) are. When I play I use the following:

      Cat: Fingers 1,2,4,5 are legs, middle finger is head

      Tinfoil: Just like paper

      Microwave: A sort of box made with one or both hands

      Cat & Tinfoil: Cat uses legs to scamper with tinfoil, makes joyful meowing sounds

      Tinfoil & Microwave: Tinfoil goes in microwave, microwave shakes, makes zappy noises

      Microwave & Cat: Cat goes in microwave, beeping noises, panicked meowing, fingers splat out and make gooey explosion noise

    3. Re:Cat, tinfoil, microwave by Servants · · Score: 1

      Good grief. I admire your manual dexterity, but the more common gestures are quite a bit simpler.

      Cat: make a fist for the cat's head, extending first two fingers in "V" shape for the ears.

      Tinfoil: all fingers straight, hand flat.

      Microwave: make a fist, representing the box.

      I'm sure if you practice you'll get it down...

  46. Don't let it watch porn or Discovery Channel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter what you do, don't let it watch porn or the Discovery Channel! They'll learn to reproduce and hunt!

    *Lab Tech 1* Didn't there only used to be two of those learning computer things?

    *Lab Tech 2* Yeah, so what?

    *Lab Tech 1* Well, now theres like a dozen of ... oh ... owwwwwww. IT's GOT MY LEG!!!! GET IT OFF!!! GET IT OFF!!!!!!!

  47. Rock beats everything! by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    even paper!

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  48. i can smell the smoke now by ilikedonkeykong · · Score: 1

    Paper beats rock!?! Does not compute.

    1. Re:i can smell the smoke now by PornMaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, why the fuck *does* paper beat rock, anyway?

  49. Shortly after learning Rock Paper Scissors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And shortly after learning how to play "Rock Paper Scissors" the robot had an epiphany. Humans are stupid stupid stupid.

  50. Bloody-minded Computers by handy_vandal · · Score: 1
    ... I think it will be the one sure sign of true artificial intelligence when our programs start 'cheating' to win.
    Excellent observation.

    John Brunner says something similar in Stand on Zanzibar, when Chad Mulligan declares that supercomputer Shalmaneser is "bloody-minded" ....

    -kgj
    --
    -kgj
  51. Twenty FIRST century. I expected bots 2 be smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember a prof at SFU once saying.. All these guys do is make bots roll around on the floor bumping into each other.

    My computer may be 6 million times faster than it was in 1989, but the science of artificial intelligence isn't 6 million times better than it used to be.

    I doubt they did much improving of the original neural nets of the late 80's besides add more cpu power to it.

  52. Lets Just Hope... by bjjohnson · · Score: 0

    it doesn't learn how to roshambo

    --
    Hmmm... Technology... anyone have a match?
  53. sucker punch by arron_nz · · Score: 1

    Yes, but can it play "rock, paper, scissors, sucker-punch to the neck"?

    --
    garble
  54. This is a non story by popo · · Score: 1

    Creating a computer program that rates a very limited set of relationships is not exactly difficult. If the computer were "really" watching rock paper scissors that would be incredibly cool, but the computer is taking as input a limited set of defined images on cards placed in an exact location...

    That's not Rock Paper Scissors. Its a simplified 2D representation of it organized in a precise way for computer analysis.

    By the same definitions of "learn" and "game" I could teach a computer to "learn to fight." (It would of course involve 'fight cards' precisely arranged on a table)

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:This is a non story by TLSPRWR · · Score: 1

      By the same definitions of "learn" and "game" I could teach a computer to "learn to fight." (It would of course involve 'fight cards' precisely arranged on a table)

      Oh, you play Magic?

  55. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by bonch · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the event it learns global thermonuclear war, make sure it can play tic-tac-toe against itself.

    Or we will all DIE.

  56. Industrial accidents by iamacat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since primitive machines were invented, they always had a nasty habit of choosing A, B, human instead of A,B,C. I guess you didn't give much thought to human fingers in hot dogs or robotics-related industrial accidents in Japan.

    The problem is precisely the lack of free will and independent thinking. A machine has grappling hooks, vacuum suction or serving belt, but it can not make value judgment on what/whom it is throwing into molten metal.

    As the AI develops, the problem will get worse before it gets better. A robot working in slaughterhouse might have the ability to chase a running mammal and cut it's throat, but not to ascertain exact species. Imagine a beowulf cluster of those on the run in New York subway. Workspace and consumer safety legislation would be very much in order at that point.

    1. Re:Industrial accidents by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      As true as that may be, I have difficulty believing that robots will ever approach a human's efficiency at killing humans.

  57. If only they learn this in the process. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean this _|_

  58. Theory by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    I always had a theory that the best way to build AI would be to make it mimick as well as possible the learning process of a new born baby. If it can do that, and can develop its own neural net, it could learn on its own.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Theory by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      You are assuming a neural net will emerge with all the properties of a human brain. I don't think this has yet been shown to be true. Some aspects may be modeled by a neural network but not all those that we use to solve problems.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    2. Re:Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actally cause me physical pain. It was nearly impossible for me to decide between trying to forget what I read in your comment, or yelling at you for actually saying that. English needs a word for betise. Obsiously, you are not a golfer.

  59. Uh, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a telling comment on A.I. that twenty years after the height of the boom, it's regarded as amazing that a computer could learn to play an ultra-simple game without having to be microstepped through the learning process by a human.

  60. Maybe... by game+kid · · Score: 1

    ...if it learns how to make money, knows to take said g/f out to a good restaurant (good != McD's) and doesn't look at other cute-looking girls. Or machines.

    Not that I have any experience; I'm going from hearsay, friendly advice and The Bachelor; furthermore, if your g/f actually likes McD's, the second part obviously doesn't apply.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  61. DUPE -with proof inside- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call dupe on everyone who repeatedly post the 'wargames' and 'hal' quotes.

    Seriously. Have you guys even read the thread before clicking?

  62. The Battle of Wits Has Begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robot: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

    MAN IN BLACK: You've made your decision then7

    Robot: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

    MAN IN BLACK: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

    Robot: Wait till I get going! Where was I?

    MAN IN BLACK: Australia.

    Robot: Yes -- Australia, and you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

    MAN IN BLACK: You're just stalling now.

    1. Re:The Battle of Wits Has Begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd like to -think- that, wouldn't you?!

  63. What's the difference? by al912912 · · Score: 0

    > There is a difference in coding between:
    >a. You go and learn THIS game

    Learn how to play THIS game right? Learn this game. How it's played. the rules.

    >b. Learn THAT game and tell me the rules

    Learn how to play THAT game right? Learn that game. How it's played. the rules.

    And then... tadatadatadaaaa... tell me the rules.

    Seriously, it's the same fucking thing. I don't think outputting some logical rules are what these scientists are struggling at all.

    Even though THAT game does seem harder to learn tan THIS game, maybe it's because its farther away =)

    1. Re:What's the difference? by essreenim · · Score: 1
      Seriously, it's the same fucking thing. I don't think outputting some logical rules are what these scientists are struggling at all.

      I think what he was trying (and failing) to say was that THIS game is on specific type of game the machine can learn. THAT game refers to any one of the set of all possible games - an impossible feet arguably. I think it would be nice if they could take this project further and create a machine that can learn any game similar to rock, paper, scissors. So I could just invent a game out of my head that requires hand gestures and the machine could learn it.

  64. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it's only the vision component of this research that is interesting. Learning to play a simple game like rock, paper, scissors isn't hard if that's what you program the computer to do. It's not hard to write a program to learn to play a more complicated game --- such as tic tac toe --- if that's all it has to learn.

    What would be interesting if it learned something that the programmer's didn't design it to learn. Or if it learned something much more complex.

  65. I like how computers by MasamuneXGP · · Score: 1

    always like to pick games they can win at. Whenever anyone wants to play rock-paper-scissors or chess they computers all gather round to spank the pathetic humans. But they're always late for an appointment whenever I bring out my Go board =p

  66. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by bonch's+conscience · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Ok, ok, I have to admit that that was a lame attempt at whoring some karma. Sorry!

    I also feel that I must confess that I have multiple personality disorder and use two other accounts to troll from. I'm a frustrated musician and a wannabee programmer who works phones for a help desk. I really hate anything open source since it means that I'll be out of a job (miserable as it is). I have no life, and even the people that used to like me think I'm a dick. I haven't been laid in seven years and as such I take out my sexual frustrations by obsessing over anyone who says anything negative about Microsoft, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Fox News or the Republican Party. Even if it's true! I can't help myself! People keep telling me that I should get some professional help, but I just never seem to get around to it.

    Thanks for listening. This has really been weighing heavily on me for the past year or so and I feel much better now having cleared the air. But if you want more confessions, look here to satify your curiosity.

    --
    I'm bonch and I'm a troll
  67. That's easy! by adam31 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll be impressed when the computer learns to play 'Cat, Tin foil, Microwave'

  68. the Roshambot by Kafir · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If you'd like to play rock-paper-scissors against a computer, there's always the WWW Roshambot. It's not at all related to the CogVis project, but interesting in its own right:
    The WWW Roshambot utilizes an Artificial Intelligence algorithm in order to determine the optimal move for each round. It does NOT cheat (i.e. it does not use your move on the current round to determine it's move for the current round), nor is it random (except on the first move).

    Presumably if it played against Bart Simpson it would learn to always pick paper.
    1. Re:the Roshambot by Fulkkari · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between CogVis and the WWW Roshambot you linked to. CogVis didn't know how to play rock-paper-scissors - it learned just by observing the human players! WWW Roshabot on the other hand knows how to play the game. It probably just uses some kind of statistical algorithm that decides the "optimal" move. Below are my results after ten games. Not impressive at all.

      Results so far
      You have won 5, lost 1, and tied 4 games

      Statistics for 10 games
      winning percentage*: 40.00%
      won : 50.00%
      lost: 10.00%
      tied: 40.00%

      * winning percentage is (wins - losses) / total games
      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
    2. Re:the Roshambot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Play it for about 40 games, I guarantee it will start kicking your ass. I had the same thing, owned the bot for about 12 games. Then slowly things went down hill from there.

  69. More info in research publications by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you actually want to understand what they did, some research publications put out by the CogVis lab have better information regarding the technical side of things.

    Towards an Architecture for Cognitive Vision Using Qualitative Spatio-temporal Representations and Abduction (Cohn et al, 2003)

    Modeling interaction using learnt qualitative spatio-temporal relations and variable length Markov models (Galata et al, 2002)

  70. The brain is the one asking all the judges i've ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A computer is a set of rules.

    Because the world laughs with you. I actually do not think it means what you think it means what you don't have any appointments.

    People just bloated it with these silly questions? Anyway, let's talk about something a little more interesting.

  71. Re:No ppl its not that simple.... [winhat] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A baker is a good kid. The polka is a tree native to australia where it is designed to perform. Demons descended upon the lands. The fire of greed burned within their minds. They destroyed the paradise that filled their eyes. From the east they swarmed to pillage, to populate the righteous under siege. The stream of invaders rose into a room with some objects. I like to think they can change the world are the moments that you will know are things of interest. 'Paper with rock drawn on it is a tree native to australia where it is important', 'paper with .......' and so on. A galaxy is a living organism which does not have the ability to move, and does not want to kill you. A poor man once told me that everyone wants to be of significance to its task. You are the moments that you will know are things of interest.
    A day is the study of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, "it is done" and there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a scottish inventor. He invented the carbon filament electric lamp and the biggest challenge is building the model of the game.

    A boomerang is a good name for a 2 year old.

    Albert einstein was a scottish inventor. He invented the carbon filament electric lamp and the biggest challenge is building the model of the relationship between an organism and its environment.

  72. Advanced AI by antivoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its amazing that this is possible! I read the article and couldn't believe it. Cognitive recognition is one of the first stepping stones to proper artificial intelligence.

    Yet when AI reaches the point that it becomes almost human-like, problems are going to form. If the programming of an AI system leads itself to thinks it understands that it is sentient, would it mean that the AI is in fact sentient?

    After all, intelligence is intelligence. By any means, an electrical intelligence could be regarded equal, because the only difference between us and "them" would be that we use a chemical and electrical method of processing data, whereas atrifical intelligence-based systems would be using purely electronic methods.

    Surely, if input (a video stream coming from an optical sensor, such as a human eye or a digital video camera), and auditory input (ears, or microphone-based) which gets processed (human brain, or CPU) and then output (screen, face, voice, speaker, etc) should not be perceived differently. Humans are data processors (data in, data out in the form of a reaction). Advanced Computer AI would be the same (data in, data out).

    Would humans really be that special then?

    1. Re:Advanced AI by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      AI is just not that simple. For example, by observing, say, 4th order Diophantine equations, we can solve them. No algorithm, however, can do the same. All current computer systems use algorithms, we seem not to be using any known algorithm to solve these equations.

      Penrose, amongst others, believes there is a quantum component in our brains that allows us this trick. No quantum computer yet built exhibits these properties. IMHO, we are no where near AI as yet.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    2. Re:Advanced AI by darquewing · · Score: 1

      If this is the case, then most of the human population would not be considered intelligent, artificial or otherwise. Look at the middle 50% of the population for where AI needs to be able to fit-in. If it can reach this goal, I would call it a blazing success.

  73. Obligatory terminator reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My cpu is a neural net processor, a learning computer.

  74. Re:And in other news computer beats world [winhat] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like to think that i haven't had the misfortune to talk about something a little bit .. I mean for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you do have.

    This world in arms is not its ability to play rock, paper and scissors, but its ability to play the game on its axis.

    You are the computer deducted how to play the game is interesting when people play it because people have a very easy job. The kind robots will be doing soon.

    A truth is a living organism which does not want to kill me.

  75. Re:Talk about simple [winhat] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A computer is a set of rules.

    If you were the system you would be put into a raging flood. Now the arrow shaft lays broken where the grasses dripped with blood. Unavenged apparitions of the game.

    People just bloated it with these silly questions? Anyway, let's talk about something a little more interesting.

  76. RoShamBo and Data Compression by shadowmatter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a fun aside, I found this RoShamBo (a.k.a. Rock, Paper, Scissors) Programming Competition entry that guesses what action is optimal based on Lempel-Ziv data compression. As the author explains, "there exists a duality between data compression and gambling. The basic idea is that if you have a sequence of data which you can compress well then the data must be predictable in some sense."

    Anyway, try it out. In the long run, it kicks my butt. I try to make 'random' decisions, but still go below .500 -- which is interesting, because that implies that perhaps subconsciously we're always applying patterns...

    - sm

    1. Re:RoShamBo and Data Compression by Hobbex · · Score: 1

      Anyway, try it out. In the long run, it kicks my butt. I try to make 'random' decisions, but still go below .500 -- which is interesting, because that implies that perhaps subconsciously we're always applying patterns...

      There are many tricks you can use to generate random data in your head. In this case, you can divide the alphabet into three parts (begining = rock, middle = paper, end = scissors). Now think of words using free association, and use the last letter of the word to decide what to do. It isn't a statistically perfect technique (unless you are careful) but I had no trouble playing that machine using it (up ten over a hundred games).

      The problem is, I guess, that people equate choosing randomly with "choosing without thinking about it".

  77. Teach the machines more complicated games by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Like Doom III or GTA... let the machines play the games, and then we can finally get some work done!

  78. I've played rock-paper-scissors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but what the heck is Draughts? I've HEARD of it, and know it's some english kids game, but never found a description of it.

    And, please, nobody answer by saying it's like wizard chess.

  79. Pattern recognition by plumby · · Score: 1

    Am I missing something (the article didn't really explain it well enough for me), or is this not simply a case of pattern recognition?

    Presumably, at the early stages of its learning, it has to be told who won which game, or at least be given some way of knowing who the winner was.

    Given that, is it not simply a case of 'computer sees image of hand A with 2 fingers up and hand B in the shape of a fist, and having previously been told that this image means a win for B, can deduce the same thing again.

  80. You know about Reinforcement Backgammon-Players? by RealNecator · · Score: 1

    They learn how to win against all other (including humans) just by playing against themselves with an additional teacher (a program) who tells them, if the have won or lost.
    Tesauro with his TD-Gammon was the first one ...
    search on Goolgle for it, or try this one:
    http://satirist.org/learn-game/systems/gammon/td-g ammon.html

  81. A better strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Against a human or bot, the best strategy is actually predicting their next move. If you want the highest possible score that is.

    I believe randomness is just the safest way around it, since predicting may be a hard problem and may leave you vulnerable if it fails (ie. the opponent predicts YOU).

    But by using intuition, experience and REALLY wanting to win every time, I bet an expert human can beat others readily, just like in poker. The small margins will always tip in favour of a pro who knows how to use it.

    However, against a random play, random play is the best strategy, since you cannot predict true random play by definition.

    1. Re:A better strategy by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      The only problem with that is that it's a lot easier trying to predict the actions of someone who is trying to predict your next move and counter it.

  82. Have they tried turning it off yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not so sure how it would feel about it.

  83. Re:Better be reliable...[winhat] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Paper with rock drawn on it is the principal extensor of the human body.

  84. Obligatory Wargames reference... by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 1

    Would you like to play a game?

  85. sure we have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've learned that, if we keep working, we'll eventually have sexy women screwing with our heads even during boring work, and spaceships full of cloned asian females etc.

    Why do you think we're still trying? ;)

  86. Good old rock, by mrjb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    .... beats them every time.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:Good old rock, by jthayden · · Score: 1

      I think he might have been trying to quote The Simpsons.

      Bart thinking: "Good old rock, nothing beats rock."
      Lisa thinking: "Poor predictable Bart, always chooses rock."

  87. Internet limtations are not logical/rant mode=on/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, is it twice in one day now that a site has be /.'d because people have wanted to look at 22meg movies??? What is it with this pathetic internet we have?? by now it should be easy to look at a 22meg movie file...we are stuck with an internet where these big monopolies limit our downloads to 2 or 3 gigs a day and when these high-bandwith (so-called) pipes became availible, nobody had any download limits, but noo, now 5 years later, we have limits and sites get /.'d really easy, yet we can buy 64 amd systems with 1-gig ram and 250 meg hard drives....does anybody see a plroblem here?? Are we being artificially limited with resources here (too much un-used dark fiber out there? maybey that's why google is bying up unused fiber, they can see a coming crisis buy cheapness and lack of forsight by big communication firms!!), we should have 100mbsec service (like Korea..both ways fast service) with the ability of your PC being a server etc, but no, most people are wimps, that's why we have movies with John-Wayn type characters, it makes the wimps in the society want to run out and join-a-war or otherwise think that they are bing matcho and conformist while being an-army-of-one (and indvidual contracdiction if I saw any). So stop sucking up to the corporate/military industrial corporate world and demand your internet bandwitdh rights and while you are doing that, please kick bill G. in the ass a few times!

  88. My own strategy observations by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    My own observation is that most people tend to throw "Scissors" at the first time. So, the "Rock" is more likely to win. This is because if you look at your hand's position for every figure, you can see, that "Rock" is completely closed hand, "Paper" -- completely open. "Scissors" is the average, that is why average person chooses it.

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  89. Re:Internet limtations are not logical/rant mode=o by dani317 · · Score: 1

    those damn 250 meg hard drives fill up so fast though!

  90. Huh, I did this ages ago.. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

    ..on my Commodore PET..

    5 PRINT "HELLO, I AM THE HAL 9000 COMPUTER."
    10 INPUT "WHAT DO YOU CHOOSE (ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS)";I$
    15 I = 0
    20 IF I$="ROCK" THEN I = 1
    30 IF I$="PAPER" THEN I = 2
    40 IF I$="SCISSORS" THEN I = 3
    50 IF I=0 THEN PRINT "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.":GOTO 10
    60 ME = INT (RND(1) * 3) + 1
    70 IF I=ME THEN PRINT "SNAP!" : GOTO 10
    80 IF ME-I = 1 OR ME-I = -2 THEN GOTO 110
    90 PRINT "You win. Dave...my mind is going...I can feel it...I can feel it."
    100 GOTO 10
    110 PRINT "Are you sure you are making the right decision? "
    120 GOTO 10

    ps. The HAL-9000 rock/paper/scissors emulator is untested & supplied "as is". The software algorithms used above ("choosing 1 of 3 random numbers, US Pat 124710947") are (P)(C)(T)adeyadey, $1 payable for each time you run it, look at it, or think about it when sitting on the bog.

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  91. Janken the Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, when it wins will you turn to stone and when it loses it attacks you with its disembodied head? Fun times..

  92. C'mon by gandell · · Score: 1

    Haven't you ever played Metal Gear Solid? Cheating is already here.

    --
    Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
  93. Vs. random play, your strategy doesn't matter. by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Against random play, it doesn't matter what you choose, because the results will always be random.

    You could always choose "rock", or have a looping pattern or anything else, but against a purely random opponent, you will both statistically tie.

    1. Re:Vs. random play, your strategy doesn't matter. by fbartho · · Score: 1

      how would the computer learn that the person was attempting to be random... in all probability its designed to look for patterns... so the human would just be spitting out signs that match a set pattern, maybe based off past choices, and given enough sample data, the computer will find a pattern, even if its not neccessarily a pattern the person thought they were following

      --
      Gravity Sucks
  94. Oh good by DOS-5 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they spent a lot more time trying to give the computer a 3D face than they did on the actual algorithms. Come on, seriously. Why do we even need that? Stupid publicity photos.

  95. You forgot... by goatan · · Score: 1
    That rock crushes scissor.... but scissors cut paper and paper covers rock, kiff we have a conundrum. Take the prisoners back to the ship and bring me a rock.

    I have no shame

    --
    Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

  96. I have one of those computers too! by Torontoman · · Score: 1


    I'm going to dust off by Commodore 64 tonight and create the BASIC program that'll randomly pick one of three options: Rock, Paper Scissors. SHouldn't be more than 5-6 lines.

    Do I get mention in Scientific American too?

  97. But what about the animals? by Columcille · · Score: 1

    The visual recognition part is impressive, but learning the game does not impress me. I mean, come on! Computers were psychic back in the 80's and would tell us what animal we were thinking of.

    --
    I love my sig.
  98. very interesting but.... by neural+cooker · · Score: 1
    is the experiment reproducible by other people with other equipment?

    But alas, like so many other AI experiments, they probably wouldn't dare release the details of their experiment. So this will probably never rise to the level of credibility even if it does work.

  99. MODS: Offtopic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this post offtopic? It's about as on-topic as the parent, yet the parent got +5 Funny. This post should at least be modded funny if you're going to be consistent.

  100. Huh?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either you English is so bad it's unintelligible, or you wrote your post in another language and then pasted it into a bad translation program.

    I'd rather read a grammatically correct post in another language than a mangled post in English.

  101. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by BatFileInDBelfry · · Score: 1

    Forget tic-tac-toe... it better know D&D.

    --
    I keep my .Bat files in D:\Belfry
  102. That's Hilarious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was this generated by some kind of web app? I didn't see it on the HolyBabble website.

    1. Re:That's Hilarious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your interest in the HolyBabble(tm)! It is just one component of the MinistryOfInformation(tm) suite of software.

      We regret to inform you that HolyBabble(tm) is currently not available for download as we are currently seeking web publishing space. It is too big to base64 encode into a Slashdot comment. One of our other fine products, JabberKatz(tm) is available for download here. Unfortunately, we are unable to supply the Jon Katz articles necessary to produce JabberKatz's output, but you are free to supply your own input material. We hope you look forward to seeing new products from us.

      Thank you for your time!

  103. Hmm by wurp · · Score: 1

    It was kicking my ass for the first 15 games, then I started beating it. I stopped at 30 games, but my win % was about 40% to its 20%, so I would have had to lose 6 and tie the other 4 for it to beat me over 40 games.

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics for 55 games
      winning percentage*: -3.64%
      won : 32.73%
      lost: 36.36%
      tied: 30.91%

  104. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    welcome our new cogvis blah blah blah....

  105. That's odd... by Chilltowner · · Score: 1

    ...I thought the first thing they were supposed to do is teach it to sing "Daisy"

  106. For your entertainment by lcsjk · · Score: 1
    I received this in an email last year. Thought this might add some insight into the championships. Realizing that the game is mostly a game of random chance, I had to laugh!

    Toronto Man Becomes 2002 International Rock Paper Scissors Champion Rock beat Scissors in the Winning Throw in Toronto Last Night Toronto, ON - Nov. 17, 2002...The World Rock Paper Scissors Society is pleased to announce that Pete Lovering from Toronto, Canada is the 2002 International Rock Paper Scissors Champion. Mr. Lovering beat 255 competitors for the Championship trophy, $1,200 in prize money, an Xbox game system, and the gold medal in the International Championships held in Toronto on November 16.

    In the final game, Lovering played a combination of Rock, Paper, Rock, Rock to take the Championship title in front of an enthralled and vocal audience. Lovering won three out of five sets against the Silver Medalist as the audience cheered, jeered and chanted the competitors' names.

    "For the first time, our experienced, international players competed against unranked players in an open tournament," said Graham Walker, Event Chair. "This made for some tense and exciting tournament play, with some of the more seasoned players knocked out earlier than expected by fresh talent. I hope to see players of this ilk compete in next year's Championships."

    Throughout the evening, more than 600 competitors and spectators filtered through the doors to witness or participate in the tournament.

    "The key to my win was maintaining a clear mind before each throw, and judging each opponent individually," said Mr. Lovering, 2002 International World Rock Paper Scissors Champion.

    As the governing body of the sport of Rock Paper Scissors, the World RPS Society (www.worldrps.com) helps to set the strategic direction of tournaments, conferences, symposiums and retreats across the Globe.

  107. Overthrow by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    This machine learns how to referee games, by structured watching. Though I'm a longtime fan of RPS, I know that there's little to learn in strategy except cute names, and timing the throws more (or less ;) simultaneously. The only skill to learn here, which itself is quite impressive, is recognizing which player has won. Frankly, I think that role is more important for a machine, as long as the players agree to its authority.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  108. Humans Created the Cylons... by hanshotfirst · · Score: 1

    ... they rebelled ... ... they evolved ...

    --
    Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
  109. Most importantly by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

    The server hasn't tanked due to /.

  110. And then by hanshotfirst · · Score: 1

    1011010110001101 cats = 0
    0101101000110010 s/cat/human
    1011001001101010 exec

    --
    Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
  111. Checkers by Wyrd01 · · Score: 1

    If you're interested in this story, you should read the book Blondie24.

    It's been awhile since I read it, so I apologize for any inaccuracies in my recollection.

    The book is about a couple of guys who set out to make a checkers playing program. Only, they didn't just hard code in the rules for checkers, they gave it as little actual checkers information as they could. Then they had it watch, and learn, and play, and watch, and learn, and play... eventually the program started catching on and became a fairly adept checkers player. The program learned to recognize certain patterns and board positions on its own, and learned to weight certain positions and moves based off what it "observed". After doing that enough it had compiled its own ruleset for playing checkers.

    I thought that was an excellent way to go about making an AI for a game. I'm a big believer in the bottom up approach, and this book demonstrates that approach wonderfully.

    It's certainly not as fast as just hard-coding the rules, or giving it a table of end-game moves, (which it sucked at for awhile) but it is a very innovative, and interesting, (to me) approach.

    Wyrd One

  112. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by bonch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Thanks for the extra hits! SG and I are benefitting from them.

  113. Learning Begins at Home by lamz · · Score: 1

    But will it learn to say: "WTF? How can paper beat a rock?"

    --

    Mike van Lammeren
    It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  114. Hmm. by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

    Sorry for my misunderstanding, but couldn't the computer just generate a random variable to play the game? After all, the game is just about luck in a sense. If someone has a more in depth explanation of this, please stop me from making myself look foolish.

    --
    "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
  115. Re:Mods: The truth about bonch/rd_syringe/OverlyCr by Phiu-x · · Score: 1

    Not to take the defense of anyone. But why hide behind AC ?

    --
    This is a stolen sig.
  116. I heard the first test failed ... by operagost · · Score: 1
    Someone left a TV showing a "Simpsons" rerun in the room and the computer kept picking rock.

    Good ol' rock ... nothing beats rock.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  117. Metamod Notification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, this is not Flamebait, it's Redundant.

    1. Re:Metamod Notification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I agree your AC post is redundant. But I disagree in that I also think it's flamebait.

  118. Make it watch Terminator and see what it learns! by hawsjs1 · · Score: 1

    Make it watch all the "Super Computer Takes Over the World" movies, Colossus, War Games, etc... and then see what it learns....

  119. Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch by bonch's+conscience · · Score: 0

    As your conscience, I felt it was the right thing to do. ;)

    --
    I'm bonch and I'm a troll
  120. Mods: The truth about bonch/rd_syringe/OverlyCrGuy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderators: Please note that "bonch" is a known fanatical psycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft shilling. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, bonch is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

    I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider bonch and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Windows or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

    If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than bonch. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

    For example, in this recent post bonch not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "MS". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +0) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

    More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own.

    More? Bad spelling in astounding conspiracy theories, more offtopic FUD and uninformed "I'm right, look at me" rants, promptly proven wrong. Worse even, bonch wants to be Bill Gates, apparently (that first one is a winner). I mean, really. You think?

    FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, offtopic FUD, and more FUD. This guy is like the Monty Python SPAM skit, but with FUD and more FUD instead of canned meat. Amazed yet? Don't forget that KDE and Gnome make you dumb, and it's all a Slashdot conspiracy. How low do you want to go? Maybe as low as this?

    The infamous Slashdot Front Page Troll? Nuclear fireballs? It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on (troll?). Like the energizer bunny. Or take these two, which stretch the definition of weird.

    It's up to you. We can get rid of this guy and make Slashdot a better place. I don't know about you, but I'd rather take the trolls and crapflooders over people like "bonch" any day. And I sure as hell don't want to be categorized along with him. This is not how you advocate free software, period.

  121. Mods: The truth about bonch/rd_syringe/OverlyCrGuy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderators: Please note that "bonch" is a known fanatical psycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft shilling. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, bonch is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

    I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider bonch and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Windows or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

    If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than bonch. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

    For example, in this recent post bonch not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "MS". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +0) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

    More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own.

    More? Bad spelling in astounding conspiracy theories, more offtopic FUD and uninformed "I'm right, look at me" rants, promptly proven wrong. Worse even, bonch wants to be Bill Gates, apparently (that first one is a winner). I mean, really. You think?

    FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, offtopic FUD, and more FUD. This guy is like the Monty Python SPAM skit, but with FUD and more FUD instead of canned meat. Amazed yet? Don't forget that KDE and Gnome make you dumb, and it's all a Slashdot conspiracy. How low do you want to go? Maybe as low as this?

    The infamous Slashdot Front Page Troll? Nuclear fireballs? It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on (troll?). Like the energizer bunny. Or take these two, which stretch the definition of weird.

    It's up to you. We can get rid of this guy and make Slashdot a better place. I don't know about you, but I'd rather take the trolls and crapflooders over people like "bonch" any day. And I sure as hell don't want to be categorized along with him. This is not how you advocate free software, period.