Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Researchers Build Rock-paper-scissors Robot That Wins 100% of the Time

slew writes "Although the robot technically cheats because it watches your hand and can recognize what shape you are intending to make and beat it before you even know what is happening. Apparently it takes about 60ms for you to shape your hand, but the robot can recognize the shape before it is completed, and only takes 20ms to counter your shape so the results appear to the human opponent to be virtually simultaneous. I wonder how difficult it would be to add lizard and spock to the mix.... ;^)."

83 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Dupe by Pikoro · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:Dupe by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      But the robot knew it was a dupe before you

    2. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not a dupe, that was version 1 where it detects it after you form the shape with your fist, version 2 detects your hand as you are making the shape, so before you even finish it changes.

    3. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Version 3 detects it before you think about it.

    4. Re:Dupe by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Version 4 kills your mom before you're born.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:Dupe by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Version 5 is made of liquid metal

    6. Re:Dupe by fatphil · · Score: 2

      That video looks like the slow version 1 (which makes no reference to there being any other versions), this video's the quicker version 2 (which explicitly refers back to the existence of prior versions).

      However, it still cheats, as it always follows the human. Perhaps the hands should be forced to touch down on a pad, such that the shape is defined at the precise instant that the first of the hands touches down. There are clear instances where the bot hasn't yet decided what to do. Or rather than doing its 1-2-3 counting by following, with lag obviously, the movements of the humans hand, it should have to follow audio counting by the human instead. That would permit the human to push the limits of mechanical lag in the same way as the bot can. If you can time that pushing perfectly, you can force the bot to default.

      So I don't think all is lost, this experiment is clearly set up to favour the robot by overlooking what it's unable to do. V3 might be faster still though, there's no reason to imagine otherwise, and eventually it will be so instantanious it's impossible to detect its lag.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    7. Re:Dupe by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Yes, aside from the impressive 'reflexes' of the system and the speed with which it operates there really isn't much impressive about this. It isn't a win if it is cheating.

    8. Re:Dupe by tippe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Version 6 looks really hot, especially while she beats up Version 4.

    9. Re:Dupe by RalphMichaelDeLeon · · Score: 1

      PTS!! PTS FOR THIS GUY

    10. Re:Dupe by RalphMichaelDeLeon · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point of cheating Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal ( THANKS WIKI) Goal in this case..to win

    11. Re:Dupe by AdamStarks · · Score: 1

      We haven't seen Version 6 yet, though after 22 years you'd think they'd come out with another entry in the series...

    12. Re:Dupe by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Well, it is undoubtedly an *amoral* way of achieving that goal.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    13. Re:Dupe by Megane · · Score: 1

      Version 7 says "Let there be light!"

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    14. Re:Dupe by RalphMichaelDeLeon · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that your are correcting a page from wiki "The all knowing and all seeing". immoral i(m)môrl,-märl/ adjective adjective: immoral 1. not conforming to accepted standards of morality. If we are talking about the machine then yes it itself is "amoral" since it lacks concern for morality, however the "cheating" is immoral since we're talking about the accepted standards of "rock paper not lizard or Spock but scissors is OK"

    15. Re:Dupe by RalphMichaelDeLeon · · Score: 1

      inb4 "Your" != you're

    16. Re:Dupe by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      If you are going to use "Let there be light" in the context of science fiction, "The Last Question" by Asimov is a much better reference

      http://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    17. Re:Dupe by Minwee · · Score: 1

      What do you get if you multiply six by nine?

    18. Re:Dupe by JustOK · · Score: 1

      42! No, that doesn't quite work.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    19. Re:Dupe by fatphil · · Score: 1

      What really matters is "accepted standards", there's no need to bring the concept of "morals" into things.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    20. Re:Dupe by Puppet+Master · · Score: 1

      7 of 9?

      --
      The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
  2. Oh yeah? Well by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    my bot eats paste

    1. Re:Oh yeah? Well by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the famous bumper sticker (paraphrased for context):

      My robot beat up your Rock-Paper-Scissors-winning honor roll robot.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  3. hmm by purnima · · Score: 1

    So the human player has no incentive to change away from the Nash equilibrium of 1/3,1/3,1/3.

    1. Re:hmm by Garridan · · Score: 2

      You mean the Homer equilibrium of "Good ol' rock. Nothin' beats that!"

    2. Re:hmm by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Thats Bart not homer. See, humans are still better at SOME unnecessary tasks.

    3. Re:hmm by Garridan · · Score: 4, Funny

      See... this is why I use computers for my memory. Wtf was I thinking, quoting the Simpsons on slashdot? Bound to fuck that one up.

    4. Re:hmm by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The human player has no incentive to play.

      The robot doesn't either, but it does anyway because that's what it does.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:hmm by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Of course the robot has an incentive to play. If it didn't play, there would be no use for it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:hmm by Minwee · · Score: 1

      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of rock, paper, scissors?

    7. Re:hmm by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Robot is not incentivized by 'having a use.'

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Once again... by PatPending · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since Rock-Paper-Scissors dates back to the time of the Chinese Han Dynasty, the Japanese built this in order to diplomatically resolve the dispute with China over the Senkaku Islands.

    Actually: in Japan, there's a "strip-poker" variant of rock-paper-scissors. The loser of each round removes an article of clothing. The game is a minor part of porn culture in Japan.

    Once again, porn drives innovation!

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:Once again... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Well, we know where the funding came from now.

      "Funny how the guy with the moveable prosthetic hand seems to win every round..."

  5. Rerun! by agapeton · · Score: 1
  6. Re:Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @1 by PatPending · · Score: 1

    We'll have to wait until the robot that detects duplicate posts about duplicate stories is completed.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  7. Simple to beat the cheat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Block the camera's vision by putting your other hand in the way.

    1. Re:Simple to beat the cheat by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work. Robot doesn't use a camera, has advanced sponges for moisture and olfactory detectors.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  8. Re:Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @1 by GiantRobotMonster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dutifully flagged this as a dupe in the firehose before it made it to the front page. Lot of good it did!

  9. Story not a dup by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    This robots offers "pull my finger" for gestures it doesn't recognize.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Story not a dup by PatPending · · Score: 1

      Oh, c'mon! You're pulling my leg, right?

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  10. Re:Get back to me when... by Gamer_2k4 · · Score: 2

    When researchers build a rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock robot. Then I'll be impressed.

    Why? It's just two more hand shapes, and the robot doesn't even need to use lizard or Spock (both rock and scissors beat lizard, and paper beats Spock).

  11. But there's an easter egg hidden somewhere... by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    If you show it the secret hand signal the robot will "Go Kabuki" and and make you a "Hot Saki" and a "Spicy Hand Roll".

    Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto

  12. Re:Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @1 by PatPending · · Score: 1

    You have to duplicate your flag in order for the dupe to be considered a dupe.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  13. Are we being insulted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    as a Slashdot reader, I hope we could get 100% new articles!

  14. Re:Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @1 by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Informative

    I dutifully flagged this as a dupe in the firehose before it made it to the front page. Lot of good it did!

    Dice doesn't have dedicated slashdot editors anymore. They are editors of a dozen or so sites. Really now, what kind of quality do you expect now that they've sold out and now monetize the web synergies to create a new market paradigm of customer-focused informational advertisements?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  15. Re:Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @1 by PatPending · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dice doesn't have dedicated slashdot editors anymore.

    Dice doesn't have dedicated editors anymore.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  16. Susceptible to feints? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just curious if it's susceptible to feints, or if it reacts even too quickly for that.

    1. Re:Susceptible to feints? by stewsters · · Score: 1

      v4 Puts people in a sort of shared dreamworld to use as batteries. Or to use their brains as processing power, which would have been way better IMHO.

  17. Years ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I recall someone else already did this years ago.

  18. Same robot hand doing other crazy stuff by HizookRobotics · · Score: 1

    Back in 2009, the same researchers had this hand doing all sorts of crazy dexterous motions... dribbling, pencil flipping, throwing & catching, etc: http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation

    1. Re:Same robot hand doing other crazy stuff by fatphil · · Score: 1

      That video's much more impressive than the one in TFA. The catching of the phone was astounding!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  19. What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What if he play with another one with the same model. Do they win 50% of the time?

  20. Cheats, not wins by daveewart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Title should read: "Japanese researchers build Rock-paper-scissors robot that cheats 100% of the time"

    --
    "If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
    1. Re:Cheats, not wins by InsightfulPlusTwo · · Score: 1

      Cheating still counts as a win if you find the experience amusing. Imagine a magician with robot speed and dexterity. Sure it's just tricks, but imagine the fun you will have trying to figure them out when the hand is truly MUCH quicker than the eye...

      --
      I felt bad for the man who had no signature, until I met a man who had no comment.
    2. Re:Cheats, not wins by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Do you consider successful poker bluffers "cheaters" as well? They operate on information gleaned from opposing physical "tells" too.

      I'd thing it would be very interesting to play a few rounds with this robot. I bet with a bit of work any reasonably competent human will be able to fool it to make it lose every time. When it comes to "cheating", its tough to beat a human being. :-)

    3. Re:Cheats, not wins by Praxisvico · · Score: 1

      Robots cannot cheat. The concept of cheating presupposes both an intentional state of mind and a morally culpable being. Cheating presupposes that a being we’d hold morally responsible has the intentional mind set to cheat. Robots can have neither the intention to cheat or nor moral culpability.

    4. Re:Cheats, not wins by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I don't understand this rationale at all. It's not cheating, it's just better than you are. Is it cheating that Deep Blue can beat world chess champions because it can successfully counter world chess champion strategies?

      If cyborgs existed, would they all be cheaters because they could naturally do what was done in the video?

      Are humans who are gifted with unnaturally good reflexes cheaters because their abilities deviate beyond what we might consider "normal"?

      Then again, I guess it is human nature to drop the cheating card when they lose.

    5. Re:Cheats, not wins by daveewart · · Score: 1

      Cheating is a perfectly valid description. It's subverting the rules of the game by showing its Rock/Paper/Scissors are seeing its opponent's hand. Intention has nothing to do with it.

      --
      "If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
    6. Re:Cheats, not wins by daveewart · · Score: 1

      Of course it's cheating, it's subverting the rules of the game. The robot is showing its hand after seeing yours. The fact that it does so fast enough to fool human perception doesn't change this.

      Your comparison with chess is invalid: Deep Blue plays chess according to the rules of chess. This robot, on the other, is not playing according to the rules of Rock/Paper/Scissors, therefore it is cheating.

      --
      "If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
  21. RTFA by thephydes · · Score: 1

    This is a new model that is able to make predictions faster!!!! geez, does anyone RTFA??? Or maybe there are some here that cannot believe that the Japs can do something better than the Yanks? Just saying.

  22. Based On History... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    The first real-world application of this device will be in one of "those" doll/robots with the special moving parts.

    And it won't be located at the end of an arm, either. ;-)

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  23. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    In Korea, only old people play rock-paper-scissors with robots.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  24. Sounds like the halting problem by bugnuts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have it play against itself, then we'll see some small values of 100%.

    1. Re:Sounds like the halting problem by fatphil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It won't complete the first round, as both will just sit there waiting for the other to move. "Never loses" might be the best way of describing it.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    2. Re:Sounds like the halting problem by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      So the only way to win is not to play? Joshua taught me that.

    3. Re:Sounds like the halting problem by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Have it play against itself, then we'll see some small values of 100%.

      Depends how you define win. It will win 100% if it means it never loses.

      Of course, if you add ties to the mix, the win percentage will be much lower.

      If it plays itself, it will probably continually tie itself. If you don't count ties, that's basically still "winning".

  25. Re:Why... by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Recognising pilot gestures almost immediately is a good thing for a Gundam to have.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  26. Re:Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @1 by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    Stop, don't write that again, there are just somethings not read before going to work. Now I'll have executive speak in my brain all day....damn you...damn you to HR.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  27. Japan's equivalent of "still no cure for cancer" by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    Japan's rapidly-ageing population gives money to researchers to build robotic servants that address the lack of young people to look after them in years to come... and gets rock-paper-scissors-bot instead.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  28. Re:Japan builds robots that cheat. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but if you want a robot maid from Japan, it's going to be a sex bot.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  29. Re:Japan builds robots that cheat. by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Damn, now I lost my train of thought, instead I'm thinking about a sex bot that reacts to me before I even make a move.
    'Thinking' is probably the wrong term.

  30. What happens by areusche · · Score: 1

    If you change the shape while coming down? So on 3, you stick your fingers out for scissors and then switch immediately to a rock?

    1. Re:What happens by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 1

      You'd tie... Wouldn't you rather switch from scissors over to paper? Since if it "thinks" you'll have scissors, you'd want paper cause the robot would choose rock to beat you...

      --
      I am 31337 or something.
  31. Re:Why... by Megane · · Score: 1

    Add a little voice recognition and you can call out all your attacks, too!

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  32. Re:Get back to me when... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    so what is the maxtrix of which trump which? is it perfectly balanced win/lose so there is no advantage to any one shape, otherwise the lizard and spock additions can't be allowed.

  33. Re:Get back to me when... by Minwee · · Score: 1

    so what is the maxtrix of which trump which?

    Surely there must be some way of finding that information.

  34. Re:Japan builds robots that cheat. by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    I believe that sex dolls are being worked on. They have the dead fish (they just lay there) ones now. The movable ones always ready for you are being worked on now.

    When the ghost in shell sex dolls are out the world will end. Those models will first seduce you. Then screw your brains out. Then blow your brains out. If you are really unlucky all of that will happen in less then five minutes.

  35. Re:Get back to me when... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    Rock beats scissors. Scissors beats paper. Paper beats rock. Nothing beats a bj.

  36. rigged tests are unimpressive by prgrmr · · Score: 1

    Lets see the test done with the human hand held still in front of the robot hand and not waving around or flying toward the robot to signal the start of the game, and the gesture not overly-dramatically done, and have the robot triggered from a verbal cue just like the human. Yes, I get that the Japanese love robot tech. But this isn't good robot tech, and it's certainly not good science, it's just rigged pseudo-drama.

  37. "technically cheats"? by glwtta · · Score: 1

    It just plain cheats. Or did you mean it cheats in a highly technical manner?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  38. The Way of the Tosser by mungewell · · Score: 1
  39. Version 7 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    ...keeps saying, "By your command".

  40. Re:Get back to me when... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    the additions of hadron collider and zombies is more interesting, and I'm making a slashdot version with Natalie Portman thrown into the mix. Spock and the zombie and the lizard are going to be so pleased......