Slashdot Mirror


Robots Aim To Top Humans At Air Hockey

An anonymous reader writes "You probably knew that the Deep Blue supercomputer beats chess masters, and that last weekend a software robot defeated four poker champions. But you may have missed this one: a GE Fanuc robot is taking on humans at air hockey. The robot is powered by a special PC-board that can instantly switch between 8-bit and its 32-bit modes. The 8-bit version lost to most human players, but the 32-bit microcontroller has defeated even the best human air hockey players by a ratio of three to one."

177 comments

  1. The only real sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I won't be worried until computers start to beat us at bear pong.

    1. Re:The only real sport by Spudtrooper · · Score: 5, Funny

      How is a robot supposed to get a bear to stand still and open its mouth to throw in a ping pong ball?

    2. Re:The only real sport by Broken+Toys · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bear pong?

      Squirrel pong, sure; monkey pong, any day; but bear pong? That's where I draw the line.

    3. Re:The only real sport by SomeJoel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good thing you cleared that up, I thought it meant hitting a grizzly back and forth across a table.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    4. Re:The only real sport by electricbern · · Score: 4, Funny

      if that was the case I'm sure robots would be able to beat us quite easily.

      --
      alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
    5. Re:The only real sport by WinPimp2K · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know about bears and open mouths, but I'm sure the Japanese are working on a robot that can beat all human challengers at tonsil hockey.

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    6. Re:The only real sport by jgarra23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I won't be worried until computers start to beat us at bear pong.

      Is that similar to beer pong, only more dangerous?

    7. Re:The only real sport by SiriusStarr · · Score: 1

      Bah! There is only one true sport. I'll be concerned when robots can beat us at this.

      --
      Fear the penguin.
    8. Re:The only real sport by wondershit · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I won't be worried until computers start to beat us at bear pong.

      ... or maybe at Chess Boxing

    9. Re:The only real sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And thanks for demonstrating the neurological effects of playing beer pong.

      Actually, to be fair, it's very likely that similar malfunctions are also the cause of playing beer pong. Researchers originally thought that positive feedback was initiated by "pledging" a social fraternity/sorority, but it now seems most likely that "pledging" is itself but a symptom of a congenital defect.

      The evolutionary advantage for the species is obvious: when defective organisms have a tendency to clump together and disable their higher cognitive functions en masse by imbibing excessive quantities of ethanol, then they can be easily eliminated through mass extermination.

      However, there is associated risk: if extermination fails, the defectives may begin interbreeding, thus evolving a subspecies, supertards, which may begin undermining the species' broader social organization, due to the supertards' natural inclination for the lowest-skilled activities---business management, marketing, politics---which are, terrifyingly, activities with great potential for reducing the overall species' quality of life if not bounded and carefully monitored by more intelligent organisms.

      The results of careless monitoring could be disastrous. In a "perfect storm" scenario, where the supertards are allowed to impress their opinions upon large groups via mass communication and positions of power, then humanity's classical value system could actually be inverted! Imagine, a world where sports, entertainment, and consumerism are deemed more important than science, philosophy, and art! Where responsibility is shunned, work avoided, and a sense of entitlement the rule! Where xenophobia is disguised as religion, and religion derided by faux-scientific antireligion! Where film actors, instead of being recognized as glorified circus clowns, are given society's highest respect & obsessive admiration! Where full-time sportsman, instead of being mocked for wasting their lives, are beloved "heroes" whose salary is greater than the aggregate salaries of entire university faculties! Where conspicuous consumption is a substitute for cultural tradition! Where public schools are run by political committees and unions! Where the front page of Yahoo! recounts last night's television schedule alongside news of war and natural disaster! I could go on, but why? You see the horrors we could face if the extermination of supertards were to be forgotten.

      I certainly hope that never happens.

    10. Re:The only real sport by Forge · · Score: 1

      Computers can beat humans at games where the possibilities are finite.

      For instance. Any decent programmer can make a tic-tac-toe game that is absolutely unbeatable. A robotic pool player of championship grade should be relatively simple (as game playing robots go).

      Poker isn't actually that hard since so much of poker play is disguising the emotional reasoning behind your decision to fold, call or raise and if you raise by how much. Since a computer can consistently play in 10 2nds after the commencement of it's turn and will show no twitches, blushing, embarrassed laughter or any other signs of why it did something, it is impossible to read.

      Couple that with a perfect understanding of the mathematics behind poker and the "skill" of a well written poker software starts to become impressive.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    11. Re:The only real sport by Forge · · Score: 1

      I must add that, the computer can be taught to "read", some aspects of it's opponent's play.

      BTW: "2nds" should have "seconds". I need to reduce my dosage.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    12. Re:The only real sport by durnurd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah! There is only one true sport. I'll be concerned when robots can beat us at this.

      Or perhaps Brockian Ultra Cricket?

      --
      --Edward Dassmesser
    13. Re:The only real sport by shackan · · Score: 1

      i wish i had points right now

    14. Re:The only real sport by exley · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was going to use a mod point here but there's no "+1 Probably True" option.

    15. Re:The only real sport by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 5, Funny

      Donkey Pong?

      --
      Huh?
    16. Re:The only real sport by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 3, Funny

      You, sir, just won the internet.

      Unfortunately you forgot to log in, so your prize goes back into the pool.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    17. Re:The only real sport by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      I dunno man, I was in a fraternity in college and I didnt drink that much alcohol at all and rarely get drunk when I do drink.

      --
      Balderdash!
    18. Re:The only real sport by Indagator · · Score: 1

      The evolutionary advantage for the species is obvious: when defective organisms have a tendency to clump together and disable their higher cognitive functions en masse...then they can be easily eliminated through mass extermination.

      So, what you're saying is that there's an evolutionary reason for Slashdot. Of course! It all makes sense now!

      Still, I wonder when that trait will catch up to the new reality of the Internet age. Wholesale extermination is difficult to accomplish on so geographically diverse a population.

    19. Re:The only real sport by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Just throw a furry convention, it'll get them all together.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    20. Re:The only real sport by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      yeah! you take a ping-pong table, a drunken bear, two chipmunks.. and a big baseball bat each. it's fun, but we've still gotta figure out what the chipmunks are for.

    21. Re:The only real sport by bmo · · Score: 2, Informative

      "How is a robot supposed to get a bear to stand still and open its mouth to throw in a ping pong ball?"

      Marshmallows.

      Bears *love* marshmallows. They will do anything for a sweet squishy marshmallow.

      http://www.clarkstradingpost.com/attractions.php

      But I think that after teaching a bear that small white things are sweet and then you toss in a ping pong ball...well...you get what you deserve after that.

      --
      BMO

    22. Re:The only real sport by beerbear · · Score: 1

      That's SO not funny, dude.

      --
      Hold my beer and watch this!
    23. Re:The only real sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps we need to see if they can come up with a computer that can beat a human at Fizzbin, or dragon poker. The first is easy. Extra geek points to the person who gets the second without google.

    24. Re:The only real sport by theprophetofmephisto · · Score: 1

      i still think that the department should have been 'air hockey tables blow'.

      --
      composition | performance | education | music
  2. Boring... by snl2587 · · Score: 1

    Show me a robot that can beat humans at real hockey. Then I'll be impressed.

    1. Re:Boring... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you really want robots out there who can check you into the boards and beat you in a fight?

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    2. Re:Boring... by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll be worried when they can beat us at Dodge the EMP Blast.

    3. Re:Boring... by elemnt14 · · Score: 0

      They would make the best goalies. Although assuming both goalies can block 100% of shots, it would become an indefinite stalemate.

    4. Re:Boring... by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      How about a wall in front of the goal? Mission Accomplished!

    5. Re:Boring... by SomeJoel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or a game of soccer!

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    6. Re:Boring... by kiwilake · · Score: 1

      now a robot playing underwater hockey, that would be more impressive

      --
      sink, swim, score and be happy :D
    7. Re:Boring... by elemnt14 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Although I agree that seeing hockey teams full of robots would be somewhat exciting (only to see them go up in sparks by a hard hit), I have to say that i personally would enjoy watching the sport with human players. Robots can not think for themselves (well, not yet anyway), so you would not see strategy that can change due to the changes on the field, or see some really great shots that only a human could pull off.

    8. Re:Boring... by Jerf · · Score: 1

      OK.

      Yeah, I'll grant it's not fully autonomous, but I guarantee you I can use it to beat you at a game of hockey.

    9. Re:Boring... by Otter · · Score: 1

      I'd cite Strange Brew as a precedent, you hoser, but I guess those weren't actually robots.

    10. Re:Boring... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      You mean, give the robot a stick and program it to violently assault its opponent?

      Now introducing the 2008 GE/FANUC Thug-o-matic 5000!!!

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:Boring... by nsayer · · Score: 1

      Um... I may be wrong, but I think a paraplegic could beat a robot at that, given that humans don't respond to EMP.

    12. Re:Boring... by p0tat03 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well... Since the only way to generate a sizable EMP blast is a nuclear detonation, I would say that's a small comfort... :)

    13. Re:Boring... by spydabyte · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    14. Re:Boring... by scottrocket · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if they're fembots - ooooh

    15. Re:Boring... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Whoooooosh!

    16. Re:Boring... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Underwater hockey with a Roomba as the puck!

    17. Re:Boring... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

      I have to say that i personally would enjoy watching the sport with human players.

      In that case, you're in luck!

    18. Re:Boring... by elemnt14 · · Score: 1

      Hey what do you know, one of my favorite places online!

    19. Re:Boring... by Hojima · · Score: 4, Informative

      From wikipedia:

      Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) is an electromagnetic pulse generated without use of nuclear weapons. There are a number of devices to achieve this objective, ranging from a large low-inductance capacitor bank discharged into a single-loop antenna or a microwave generator to an explosively pumped flux compression generator. To achieve the frequency characteristics of the pulse needed for optimal coupling into the target, wave-shaping circuits and/or microwave generators are added between the pulse source and the antenna. A vacuum tube particularly suitable for microwave conversion of high energy pulses is the vircator.

    20. Re:Boring... by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jan: Well, what would you suggest.
      Michael: A statue.
      Jan: Of Ed?
      Michael: Yeah.
      Jan: I'm not sure that's realistic.
      Michael: Well, I think it would be very realistic. It would look just like him.
      Jan: No, that's not â¦
      Michael: We could have his eyes light up, we could have his arms move â¦
      Dwight: That is not a statue, that is a robot.
      Michael: I think that is a great way to honor Ed.
      Dwight: And how big do you want this robot?
      Michael: Life size.
      Dwight: Mmm, no. Better make it two-thirds. Easier to stop it if it turns on us.
      Jan: What the hell are you two talking about?

      Dwight: Look, I gave him a six-foot extension cord so he can't chase us.
      Michael: That's perfect.

    21. Re:Boring... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but robots rarely get pissed off and wail on each other.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    22. Re:Boring... by whimmel · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...with one of these maybe I can finally beat my girlfriend in air hockey. I've lost every game since I bought the table.

      --
      Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    23. Re:Boring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woooosh.

    24. Re:Boring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear that fucktard? That was the joke going over your head.

  3. Seems like this would be trivial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the article, and it didn't mention how physically strong the robot was. I bet even the best human players would have a hard time stopping a puck traveling in excess of 250 MPH.

    1. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by thedrx · · Score: 1

      They didn't really state it was unbeatable, just that it beats human players easily, most of the time.

    2. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 3, Informative

      They didn't really state it was unbeatable, just that it beats human players easily, most of the time.

      Don't know which article you read, but:

      So far, the robot has defeated every human opponent running in 32-bit mode, averaging three times as many goals as human players. The algorithm's success resulted from revising its strategy whenever a goal was scored against it. Some revisions were refinements of strategies, but others were outright fixes to bugs in tactics.

      --
      An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
    3. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by dougmc · · Score: 4, Informative
      Depends on what you mean by `unbeatable'.

      Humans can still score on it occasionally, so they're `beating' it in that sense. But overall, it still wins more than it loses.

      Statistically speaking, if it averages 3x the score of it's opponents, a human should be able to beat it once in a while -- it just hasn't happened yet.

    4. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by von_rick · · Score: 1

      They can even do a better Robot dance than humans when they score.

      --

      Face your daemons!

    5. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Humans can still score on it occasionally, so they're `beating' it in that sense.

      That's like saying that Deep Blue isn't "unbeatable" because it still loses pieces during the match.

      If you can't win a game, you haven't beaten it, despite scoring points.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    6. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Dude, the point of the game is not to score first, but to score more times.

      if the most points you can score period is around 5, then you're fucked and it's unbeatable.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    7. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The most awesome chess computer of all time, the one that has analyzed every single possible game, and knows every ramification of every move ... you'll never be able to beat it. The best you'll be able to do is tie it with a similar computer. But it will still lose chess pieces, that's part of the game and is unavoidable.

      But air hockey is different. The board doesn't change from point to point. If your robot is fast enough to never miss a puck that's under a certain speed, and the puck never can reach that speed ... then you'll never score. Even once.

      In short, your analogy falls short.

    8. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by telbij · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's like saying that Deep Blue isn't "unbeatable" because it still loses pieces during the match.

      It's not at all like that. Chess is a positional game. The proper analogy would be that Deep Blue wasn't "unbeatable" because it's position was seen to be deteriorating during some stretch of the game.

    9. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by dougmc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, if the most points you can score is around five, then you're fucked and it's unbeatable, yes.

      However, that's not likely to be the reality. The reality is more likely to be that for each point, the computer has a 75% chance of making it and you have a 25% change of making it. So in the vast majority of cases, the computer is going to outscore you 3:1 ... but if you were to have an incredible string of luck, and hit your 25% 5 times in a row -- the computer probably couldn't catch up before you hit 7. Yes, the odds are certainly not in your favor, but winning (reaching 7 points first) is not impossible.

      Now, as I understand it, the computer does learn, so it's skill at playing you should increase over time, but humans can learn too.

      Either way, if you can ever score on the computer, then it's not unbeatable. It might require incredible luck, but if you can get lucky enough to score once, you can get lucky enough to score seven times in a row. (Though it seems to me that you ought to be able to make a computer that is unbeatable, just make it fast enough to deal with the fastest possible puck moving in the most crazy possible way. Then you'd never score on it, unless something actually broke/failed.)

    10. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by Kingrames · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll let your argument stand, but only because Federer lost.

      You're getting off easy.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    11. Re:Seems like this would be trivial... by SBacks · · Score: 1

      The most awesome chess computer of all time, the one that has analyzed every single possible game, and knows every ramification of every move ... you'll never be able to beat it. The best you'll be able to do is tie it with a similar computer.

      Well, that depends. If you're playing black, its conceivable that even if you always make the optimum move, you'll still lose.

      It may be that at the start of a game, white is already at "Mate in 456 moves"

  4. Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bender: Now, Wireless Joe Jackson, there was a blern-hitting machine.
    Leela: Exactly. He was a machine designed to hit blerns.

    1. Re:Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Except for the word "blern", that post made no sense whatsoever!

    2. Re:Futurama by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      And I suppose Pitch-o-mat 5000 was just a modified howitzer?

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
  5. Let be the 10th to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new Air Hockey dominating overlords!

  6. Shufflepuck by Trogre · · Score: 2, Informative

    All I can say is:
    "Good shot"

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Shufflepuck by goatpunch · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Skip.

    2. Re:Shufflepuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should call this robot 'DC3'

    3. Re:Shufflepuck by oever · · Score: 1

      Ah a great Amiga 500 classic.
      DC3

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    4. Re:Shufflepuck by nsayer · · Score: 1

      Huh. I didn't know of it on the Amiga. I played it back in the day on a mac.

    5. Re:Shufflepuck by raddan · · Score: 1

      When robots start using telekinesis, let me know.

  7. pfft eight bits to lose? by way2trivial · · Score: 4, Funny

    I refuse to be impressed.

    I can create a 2 bit air hockey robot that will lose to everyone but Butters!

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  8. Video by electricbern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They could make a robot that beats human players at air-hockey but they were not able to make a watchable video or it in action? I guess it is all about specialization.

    --
    alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
    1. Re:Video by darkhitman · · Score: 2

      I believe this story, which has a video, is about the same robot. And if not, close enough.

      --
      Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
    2. Re:Video by emok · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here's a photo of the robot in action.

    3. Re:Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  9. If this is'nt skynet.... by TornCityVenz · · Score: 5, Funny

    This must be one of the best ways to get a research grant to pay for an air hockey table I've ever heard.

    --
    I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
    1. Re:If this is'nt skynet.... by davolfman · · Score: 1

      Actually given that they took pains to make the system so it could use either an 8-bit or a 32-bit micro at random suggests that Freescale was footing the bill as a publicity stunt the whole time. I see no other reason for it.

  10. Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Honestly, it's not as if some robot is paintaing abstract art or writing poetry here.

    Robots exceeding humans in strength and precision when designed to do so is not news, it's our technology "working as intended".

    If they didn't exceed human strength or precision, i'd expect articles like "engineer blacklisted as incompetent for designing defective robotics"

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah but if they created a working human like arm with the strength and reaction time of an average human and it still beat everyone in arm wrestling or air hockey, then I would be impressed. That kind of research would also be very useful for creating artificial limbs.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by daniel_newton · · Score: 1

      yeah robots have been doing strength and precision for ages (think robotic assembly lines) but the cool thing about this project is linking robotic speed and precision with decent vision

    3. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by nfk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Honestly, it's not as if some robot is paintaing abstract art or writing poetry here."

      You picked a couple of interesting examples; I'm sure robots could paint abstract art and write poetry that would match some of today's offerings by human beings. Anyway, I have no idea how complex it is to program a robot to play air hockey, and whether it involves only strength and precision, but there was an idea I read in a book by Douglas Hofstadter that I find amusing: artificial intelligence is always defined as whatever a machine cannot do yet.

    4. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by spydabyte · · Score: 1

      In other news, teenage members of the human race have been cutting off limbs to play better air-hockey in arcades across the nation.

    5. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Prosthetic limbs don't need to be intelligent and play air hockey. They need to be strong and have good control, since the implication here is that a human operator will always be present (or more accurately, *attached*).

    6. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      They do need to be able to make the most out of minimal input from the user. The user might very likely have a minimal degree of movement of whatever the prosthetic is connected to. It would help greatly if the arm was intelligent enough to guess what movement the user was trying to do based upon the circumstance. If you were playing air hockey it would interpret your movements as attempts to play air hockey. If you were trying to play the guitar, it would interpret them in that fashion. There could be a sort of learning process for both the user and the arm as they learned how to work better with each other.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    7. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      artificial intelligence is always defined as whatever a machine cannot do yet.

      I wish I had mod points, you are exactly right. It's funny how people forget that what was once thought to be something only a human could do, if a machine is able to do that task better, then of course the machine could do it better. After all, that is what it was designed for.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    8. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by Nyall · · Score: 1

      decent vision? black puck moves across white surface... sounds sort of boolean to me

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    9. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by cgenman · · Score: 3, Informative

      it's designed to upsell 32 bit processors. Annoyingly enough, it just takes x,y coordinates from a vision system, estimates trajectories, and outputs position data to a robotic arm. Really, you should be able to compile code on the nes to do that. It calculates three rebounds? That seems somehow like an easy task if you're being fed realtime position information.

      Color me amused but unimpressed. It is a great ad, but an ad nonetheless.

    10. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by ciaran.mchale · · Score: 1

      artificial intelligence is always defined as whatever a machine cannot do yet.

      I recall a similar sentiment when I was a graduate student doing research into distributed systems. A distributed system was one that did not work reliably yet. Once it worked reliably enough it was given a different name, such as "email", "ftp", "DNS", or "world wide web".

    11. Re:Robots also top humans at arm wrestling.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside of the fact that art and poetry are works of creativity and how one "feels". Robots can't emulate that.

  11. I for one welcome... by gnosi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh that is just getting so old. In this context however it could become so real.

    On to the real subject...

    "If droids could think for themselves we would not be here"

    The day is coming when most if not all the routine and skilled functions of life will be carried out better by robots than by humans.

    The last bastion for the human mind will be pure abstract thinking.

    I do not even pretend to know what that new day will bring to the meaning of mankind when computers become better than the human mind at pure abstract thinking.

    --
    It is all in the sig. The rest is just window dressing

    1. Re:I for one welcome... by rugatero · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome... Oh that is just getting so old.

      I do not even pretend to know what that new day will bring to the meaning of mankind when computers become better than the human mind at pure abstract thinking.

      They'll probably devise some new memes.

      --
      This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
    2. Re:I for one welcome... by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one welcome our meme-devising robotic overlords.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    3. Re:I for one welcome... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what's commonly called a "singularity". A point that changes things so much that it's impossible to predict its effects with any certainty. Depending on how we handle things, it could be a violent occasion worthy of a large-budget action sci fi movie, a quiet fade and disappearance of humanity, or a metamorphosis of humanity into a new form. Or it might not ever happen. *shrug*

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    4. Re:I for one welcome... by notnAP · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I do not even pretend to know ... when computers become better than the human mind at pure abstract thinking.

      QED?

    5. Re:I for one welcome... by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      So, by this definition, wouldn't it be a "singularity" for most /.ers to establish a relationship with a member of the opposite sex?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    6. Re:I for one welcome... by crenshawsgc · · Score: 1

      No, that's not part of the definition of singularity at all.

    7. Re:I for one welcome... by scottrocket · · Score: 1
      "I for one welcome our meme-devising robotic overlords."

      This is the first robotic overlord meme joke that has ever made me laugh out loud. Usually, I just chuckle. It was a weird feeling.

    8. Re:I for one welcome... by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      There will be a war. The humans will win. The robots will live somewhere else for a while. Then they will launch a surprise attack, wiping out the vast majority of the human race, with the survivors spending years searching for Earth... ah crud!

    9. Re:I for one welcome... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Don't feel too bad... it's only funny because it's playing the meme on the meme itself... Any further jokes of this format will not elicit any humorous response from you...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  12. smarter or faster? by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

    The article hints at both, so it's hard to tell if the robot's true advantage lies in being able to analyze the puck's path more quickly than the human players, or is the robot arm simply faster/more powerful/more accurate than a human arm? If the former, then that's pretty cool. But if it's the latter, well heck, I can hop in a car and drive faster than an Olympic runner, but I don't write articles about it.

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    1. Re:smarter or faster? by TornCityVenz · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like the critical factor was paitence. The robot plays deffensivly. Most human players will go for a score on most shots.

      --
      I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
    2. Re:smarter or faster? by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Better tactics. The robot is better at predicting the puck and where to hit it. It also plays very defensively. Combine that with high speed and accuracy, and the bot is a winner.

      In fact, the only reason it loses in 8 bit mode is it can't calculate the position of the puck fast enough to always catch it.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:smarter or faster? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's hard to tell if the robot's true advantage lies in being able to analyze the puck's path more quickly than the human players, or is the robot arm simply faster/more powerful/more accurate than a human arm? If the former, then that's pretty cool.

      Why? It's a game where the puck is operating in a near frictionless environment. Hence, the speed can be computed as if it is linear. Of course a robot can more precisely measure time between samples and the location of an object on a fixed plane. So, the calculation of a puck's path had better be more impressive than a human player's.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:smarter or faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorta like creating a pong game and having it be cpu vs cpu with the paddle always having the same elevation as the ball. It is pretty pointless. Computers can do things faster and more accurately than us? GAH! We're all done for!

  13. All that effort... by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

    And the video they post is like watching a slideshow!

  14. Terrible video... by AllIGotWasThisNick · · Score: 1

    I'd like to congratulate the genius who chose to shoot fast-action footage on an unmounted low-quality camera. It reminds me of some UFO footage I've seen.

  15. Can this be a good idea? by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

    First they're beating us at chess, then at air hockey... pretty soon they're rolling around yelling "EX..TER..MI..NATE", disintegrating us, and avoiding staircases.

    This is how the human race ends, mark my words.

    (Yeah, I know, the Daleks are supposed to be cyborgs. Roll with it, it's supposed to be a joke.)

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Can this be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, if there's one thing I've learned from BSG, it's that they'll never be able to do a good rendition of "All Along the Watchtower"...

    2. Re:Can this be a good idea? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Mutant cyborgs. From outer space.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:Can this be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our air-hockey playing overlords

  16. Not impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not impressed. Despite years of playing supposedly hand-eye-coordination improving video games, I'm still better equipped at writing an algorithm to play air hockey than I am at actually doing it.

  17. Computer needed at all? by CthulhuDreamer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't just setting the arm to oscillate in an arc in front of the the goal at a few thousand rpm make scoring against it impossible? (Not to mention the 200mph random rebounds coming off a blocked shot?)

    1. Re:Computer needed at all? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That's why I stopped playing. I hit a puck so hard it broke the tip of my pinky finger sideways. It then rebounded off my finger to make a very interesting (and sadly hilarious) sound off some poor little girl's head.

      Playing a robot? Riiight. I give it a week before the emergency room staff is removing a puck from somebody's face.

    2. Re:Computer needed at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats my strategy... i also wave my hands in the air for added visual distraction

  18. Unrealistic Competition by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    Both the robot an the human should be drunk to be truly representative of regular air hockey.
    Beyond that, I say: "Just wait until the foosball competition you 32-bit tin can!"

    1. Re:Unrealistic Competition by DirePickle · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think I'd want to play foosball against a robot. Imagine how hard a robot would be able to jam the pole into your junk when he grabbed the wrong handle.

    2. Re:Unrealistic Competition by SomeJoel · · Score: 1

      It's times like this when I really wish I had mod points left.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    3. Re:Unrealistic Competition by blckholehorizon · · Score: 1

      Chandler and Joey from friends called, and you can't play foosball with them anymore. They like their junk intact.

      --
      my UID is Prime. It makes me special.
  19. Easy to understand by pieisgood · · Score: 1

    Get puck position Get puck position Get puck vector Repeat

    --
    Eat sleep die
    1. Re:Easy to understand by Benbrizzi · · Score: 1

      Get puck position Get puck position Get puck vector Repeat

      Add a PID regulator and a bit of extrapolation and you got it :) The most complicated part is probably the quick image analysis and getting the money for that high speed high precision robotic arm.

  20. Smarter and faster by dj245 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Probably both. These microcontrollers are designed to calculate corrective action (often very small actions) to processes (such as pipe flow rates, temperatures, etc). When a process deviates from the setpoint, the microcontroller is supposed to calculate the correction (increase control output X slightly). I would say something like this would require some custom coding for the controller, but nothing too crazy. One of the harder parts would be coming up with a good input data method and formatting the input sensor data, since this is a slightly odd application for ths controller.

    as an aside, the automation and control business is still a growing market, and they can never find enough engineers. Many of these jobs involve high travel if you're into that sort of thing.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  21. Only the start. by unleashedgamers · · Score: 1

    Air hockey is only the start to robots domination of our world!

  22. Show me a robot ... by MRe_nl · · Score: 2, Funny

    that wants to beat humans at air guitar. Then I'll be impressed.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:Show me a robot ... by hplus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Show me a robot that wants. Then I'll be impressed.

    2. Re:Show me a robot ... by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      You mean have a preprogrammed goal (whether it's code or life experience) that it tries to reach no matter what? I think we kind of got that...

    3. Re:Show me a robot ... by hplus · · Score: 1

      If that's the definition we use, then does a rock want to fall when I drop it? In any case, there'll be interesting times ahead while society deals with this question...

    4. Re:Show me a robot ... by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Assuming no free will, you 'want' to do whatever it is that you do in exactly the same way that a rock 'wants' to fall when you drop it. The existance or non-existance of free will is pretty important in the matter of computers being able or unable to 'want'. Lucky us, the free-will thing might at some point be solved by biology, making society's opinion irrelevant.

  23. I for one welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new air-hockey playing robotic overlords.

    (There, somebody said it.)

  24. One BIG Paddle by VoxMagis · · Score: 1

    That's all the robots need...

    --
    -- I really need to bleed off some of this /. karma.
  25. I want such a Thesis topic by giorgist · · Score: 1

    That's a great idea. I am picking my masters in mechatronics thesis. Does anybody have any similar ideas.

    G

  26. Am I the only one who wants to take it on? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I would love to see this in an arcade. I'd pay a dollar to play the arm - bring on the 32bit mode! If they could make the arm fold itself out of the way while two people are playing, this would make an excellent arcade machine.

    What's more, if the arms were standard and mass-produced, there's a great excuse for a little coding competition: Whose program will win when it's robot v. robot?

    Lots of cool AI, artificial learning and computer vision would go into it, and the result would no doubt be fun to watch!

  27. man vs printer by waveformwafflehouse · · Score: 1

    Anyone have the time to make one out of an inkjet printer and a webcam?

  28. 8-bit v. 32-bit by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

    This explains why I could always win when I played the computer on my Nintendo, but always lost when I played my Pentium desktop.

    The real battleground will be 16-bit, I guess. Warm up that old Sega Genesis.

    --
    One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    1. Re:8-bit v. 32-bit by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      The Sega Genesis actually had a 68000 microprocessor so it can do 32-bit math.

      --
      -mkb
    2. Re:8-bit v. 32-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A one-bit computer can also do 32-bit math. Just slower.

    3. Re:8-bit v. 32-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you handle the carry-over? =P

  29. Challenge! by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

    I challenge our new "Robot Air Hockey Overlords" to a duel! I am yet to be defeated at a game of air hockey on a regulation size table.

  30. Yeah, and? by Thaelon · · Score: 1

    It's pretty easy to figure out what competitions a machine will be better at than a person.

    Chess: Really hard to make a machine that can beat a person. And it takes quite a machine. Why? The game is entirely mental. And computers are really dumb. But we can make them be really dumb really fast, so we eventually pulled it off.

    Poker: It's almost cheating for a machine here. Much of the game is based off of your opponents meat-weaknesses and reading their hand from their faces. The computer doesn't have a face and is using pure probability. Even the best poker player cannot read them. So unless they're better at math than a computer and and their poker prowess isn't based on reading people, they're never going to win. It takes the game out of the game really. The perfect odds playing machine against the perfect odds playing player would come out even.

    Air hockey: It's mostly about physical speed. [sarcasm]Shockingly, machines are faster than people.[/sarcasm]

    Facial Recognition: We win, and I'd wager we will for a while. Machines still get fooled by magazine covers. Next up, multiple cameras for 3D recognition! Foiled by a mannequin head or some random person paid to pose for the cameras.

    Sex: I'm pretty sure we're still better at it. Sure, you can get some machines to give you an orgasm, but I don't think there are very many people that wouldn't rather go for a roll in the hay with a real person.

    --

    Question everything

    1. Re:Yeah, and? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's almost cheating for a machine here. Much of the game is based off of your opponents meat-weaknesses and reading their hand from their faces. The computer doesn't have a face and is using pure probability. Even the best poker player cannot read them. So unless they're better at math than a computer and and their poker prowess isn't based on reading people, they're never going to win. It takes the game out of the game really. The perfect odds playing machine against the perfect odds playing player would come out even.

      If you think that this is how poker works at a professional level, you don't know very much about poker.

      Tells are a small factor at a professional level.
      Good players already have a firm understanding of the pot odds and expected value of a call.

      The major problem with writing a good poker program is that it can't be exploitable. If the program is too "tight", an experienced human player will realize this and can always raise with trash (because the program will fold), with a minimal chance of getting caught. If the program is too "loose", the human player can play good hands far more aggressively, knowing that the program will call.

      This is a very general example. In reality, poker strategy is far more nuanced. But the basic problem that computers face is not being predictable. And, no, playing randomly doesn't help - it merely substitutes poor play for predictable play.

    2. Re:Yeah, and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And, no, playing randomly doesn't help - it merely substitutes poor play for predictable play.

      What about randomly selecting whether to play loose or tight for a particular hand?

    3. Re:Yeah, and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sex: I'm pretty sure we're still better at it.

      I'm sure the average viberator gets more action than I.

    4. Re:Yeah, and? by hob42 · · Score: 1

      Poker: [...] Even the best poker player cannot read them.

      Not quite true. I don't know anyone who relies on seeing someone's face to get a read on them - but that's because most player play (at least some) online poker these days. You can learn a lot from how your opponents play. In that sense, it could be extremly easy to adapt to a computer player that isn't complex enough to try to fool the human from time to time.

      Air hockey: It's mostly about physical speed.

      That makes it sound like it's about the speed of the arm, but it's more about the speed of the brain. And no, it's no surprise that with a certain level of technology a computer can predict the path of the puck and react to it quicker than a human.

  31. More variables by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

    Figure out the trajectory of a disc amid of two round objects in a rectangular space isn't exactly amazing technology.

    Talk to me when you can build something that knows the difference between me wanting fresh air and me needing oxygen.

    1. Re:More variables by servognome · · Score: 1

      I can build a robot to place a plastic bag over your head and eventually the problem would just goes away.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  32. better uses by zazelite · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good work, GE boffins. It warms my cockles to see our best minds conquer one more idle pastime that robots hadn't already been programmed for. When the Japanese finally achieve their ultimate goal of an android with functional genitals, those air-hockey robots will be left playing with themselves.

  33. Re:pfft eight bits to lose? by corychristison · · Score: 1
  34. First Air Hockey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then, the world.

  35. Easy? by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a dumb mechanical arm that rapidly moves the pusher left and right in front of the goal be unbeatable?

    Just move the pusher fast enough, and it's impossible to get the puck in. If the puck is going fast enough to be able to get in before being hit away by the pusher, the puck will be going fast enough to be airborne.

    Eventually, the human will lose.

  36. you can impress me by houghi · · Score: 1

    when you find a robot that can beat a human in several things.
    1) Air hockey
    2) Darts
    3) Pool
    4) Bowling
    5) mini golf
    6) Afterwards tie a shoelace

    This all without any rebuilding of the machine or doors. Also no external help, like power.

    Untill then I am not impressed if a specialy build machine is able to do a task better then a human can.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:you can impress me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the robot doesn't get any power, than the people it's playing against don't get any food.

  37. A couple of suggestions by mbessey · · Score: 1

    Guitar Hero!
    Build a robot that plays Guitar Hero (yes, by actually watching the TV and physically manipulating the guitar). You'll get practice in machine vision, compensating for the variable delays in the screen-to-sensor-to-actuator-to-guitar links, and to finance the project, you can sell saved games with 100% perfect on every song :-)

    Work out a novel locomotion technique
    We've seen wheeled, tracked, and legged robots. Flying robots and swimming robots are coming along. And then there was the snake-bot. But there are a number of other locomotion techniques in nature that haven't been reduced to practice yet, as far as I know. Elastic jumping, like a Flea uses, would be one. Or maybe brachiation, like the tree-dwelling primates. I've never seen a robot that burrows through the ground, but that'd probably be a useful tool, actually.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_locomotion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_locomotion

  38. Need I remind my fellow Futurama fans... by rpbird · · Score: 1

    ...of the blernball argument between Leela and Bender, something about the star pitcher in the old robot league being a converted howitzer? Of course a machine would win at air hockey, I'm surprised the 8-bit version lost.

  39. More bits == good by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

    The 8-bit version lost to most human players, but the 32-bit microcontroller has defeated even the best human air hockey players by a ratio of three to one.

    Cripes, I dread to imagine how powerful a 64 bit microcontroller would be!

    1. Re:More bits == good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I didn't get this either. OH NOES ITS USING HIGHER-PRECISION MATHS! Seriously, what the bollocks.

  40. Call me when they can play foosball by Dani+Filth · · Score: 1

    and I will spank that robotic ASS!

    Love,
    The Foosball Wizard

  41. Unbeatable Design by Eberlin · · Score: 1

    I can cut plywood that's about 3 feet wide and 2 inches high and can make it unbeatable in air hockey. See, as the GM of my wooden army of air hockey players, I KNOW that goaltending and defense wins championships. You're still thinking offense, speed, agility, yadda yadda. Solid goaltending, boys. That's how you win.

    1. Re:Unbeatable Design by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      If you can defend against 100% of your opponent's shots, eventually they will score against themselves enough times to make you the winner.

  42. Butters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's me!

  43. Cyberdyne here we come... by blckholehorizon · · Score: 1

    Machines are cold and calculating. Humans have the advantage of chaos and stupidity which will occasionally help them win. Now only when government contractors develop a machine with armour and machine guns to mimic this same idea { lasers a plus } will this be the end of us feeble humans...

    --
    my UID is Prime. It makes me special.
  44. Air Hockey, Chess, etc... Just pull the plug by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is remove the energy souce of the computer and you can beat it every time.

    Seriously, though, there isn't much difference between this and letting a computer fly us to the moon. Give a computer and a human a confined set of parameters and rules and the computer can, with the right programming, consistantly perform at a higher level. Add any unforseen elements to the situation and the human can learn and adjust. Computers just can't do that as they are limited by their creators, and I don't see them being able to do that any time in the near future. For example, I wonder what would happen if something was added to the Air Hockey table that sped up or slowed down the puck in certain sections (i.e. spilt cola or oil).

    What is cool is the advancement in video recognition.

    David

  45. More bits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect there are another 32 bits hidden away and the robot will strike out with 64 bits of pucking power if provoked.

  46. I doubt it by Sun · · Score: 1

    I doubt the robots would have had anything left to beat after the grizzly was done. Or do you claim the robot would be faster?

    I think the real question is whether a robot can beat a grizzly at beating a human.

    Shachar

  47. Quote by schnitzi · · Score: 1

    "My computer beat me at chess. But then I beat it at kickboxing." --Dmitri Martin

    --



    I object to that article, and to the next reply.
  48. I wrote a program that did poetry by patio11 · · Score: 1

    Neither source nor output is available, sadly, but one of my senior theses was a program to write Japanese haiku. Its disgustingly easy because human brains love to play "fill in the gaps", and in haiku if you have two verbal images which are rather disparate but share a common bond (easy to guarantee by use of a seasonal dictionary, which is exactly how human writers do it), that is considered part of the charm. (I was also really helped by selection bias, in that I was allowed to present samplings of output that showed the program at its best, and readers would invariably only remember the haiku that they thought was quirkily amazing rather than the ones which were merely nonsense.)

    The best one, and we're working across a few years of my deteriorating memory and a language gap here, came out something like:

    Late spring morning,
    Flower petals sprinkling from sakura,
    A flock of pink cranes.

    People who read that go "Wow! The computer knew that sakura blossoms and crane both fly, and that using the cranes as a metaphor for the sakura would combine gracefulness with aesthetic sensibilities!" The computer knew no such thing -- it picked 3 nouns from a list of "approved words for traditional haiku which deal with $RANDOM_SEASON", then did a bit of sentence-pattern plug-and-chug to stitch them together. Its the human reading the poem who paints the mental picture that makes it all work.

    Abstract art is similar: given that art critics will write stories about the deep meaning in pain dribbled onto a piece of paper from a cheese grater, it is not difficult to make the CheezeGratezor2009. All the hard work gets done by the art critic, not the painter.

  49. hah aha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you think that this is how poker works at a professional level, you don't know very much about poker.

    Tells are a small factor at a professional level.
    Good players already have a firm understanding of the pot odds and expected value of a call.

    The major problem with writing a good poker program is that it can't be exploitable. If the program is too "tight", an experienced human player will realize this and can always raise with trash (because the program will fold), with a minimal chance of getting caught. If the program is too "loose", the human player can play good hands far more aggressively, knowing that the program will call.

    This is a very general example. In reality, poker strategy
    i like this

  50. At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we're still better at Bulletball(TM).

  51. hockey at 4fps by heroine · · Score: 1

    The human lost because the game was only going at 4fps.

  52. Wow!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robots (A)im To Top Humans At Air Hockey

    Robot AI has come a long way since the toaster!

  53. What a crappy Video by Caspan · · Score: 1

    Its too bad that they cant invent a robot that can take more than 2 FPS on a video. Who shows off an invention or design with that crappy of a video?

  54. I am a robot that wants by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    you insensitive clod...

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  55. Re:pfft eight bits to lose? by theprophetofmephisto · · Score: 1

    yeah, it's called 'me'.

    --
    composition | performance | education | music
  56. Patriot Missile by BrunoUsesBBEdit · · Score: 1

    After seeing what missile systems are capable of I fail to be impressed by new tracking systems like this.

  57. Wrong title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not "Robots Aim To Top Humans At Air Hockey" it should be "Freaky researcher wants to make Robots Aim To Top Humans At Air Hockey"