Magic Tricks Created Using Artificial Intelligence For the First Time

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Magic Tricks Created Using Artificial Intelligence For the First Time

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Monday November 17, 2014 @03:58AM from the pick-a-circuit-any-circuit dept.

An anonymous reader writes Researchers working on artificial intelligence at Queen Mary University of London have taught a computer to create magic tricks. The researchers gave a computer program the outline of how a magic jigsaw puzzle and a mind reading card trick work, as well the results of experiments into how humans understand magic tricks, and the system created completely new variants on those tricks which can be delivered by a magician.

77 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

AI? They taught it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 04:02 · Score: 0, Interesting

If you've "taught" the computer to do something, then it is not artificial intelligence.
1. Re: AI? They taught it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  Is the AI known as GlaDOS?
Next trick by sinij · 2014-11-17 04:02 · Score: 2

Next trick - Earth disappearing into a black hole at the bottom of the magician's hat.

Maybe we shouldn't ask AI things like these?
1. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 04:19 · Score: 2
  
  "Ask" is a bit generous. Almost every AI thing like this is the same:
  1. Devise a language to describe the broad kind of thing you want(in this case board elements, and instructions to the tricked person).
  2. Show the AI some working examples
  3. Show the AI some non-working examples
  4. Let the inferred characteristics come up.
  Every time AI comes up on slashdot, this kind of magical thinking comes up, where an AI becomes capable of the extraordinary after accomplishing something specific and ordinary.
  All this AI is is a convolution matrix that essentially describes the relationship of elements to each other in a working "trick".
2. Re: Next trick by bombman · 2014-11-17 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, AI is a positively abused term. I wonder if they will manage to construct an AI that
  can determine if some research is really AI or just statistics on some specific subject.
3. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-17 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  After the AI winter, the field has really gone downhill.
  
  Since professors still need to publish, they created a distinction between 'strong AI' and 'weak AI.' For some people, this was fine and yielded useful algorithms (but not AI), but largely it's a way to get published without doing anything substantial. Like this study, for example.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-17 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  "Strong AI" for all intents and purposes, is a silly concept.
  It's the only AI that's actually AI. "Weak AI" is a way of saying, "we know we're not actually creating intelligent machines, but we like the name so we'll keep it." If people don't understand the algorithm, you can tell them it's AI and they'll believe it.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 05:45 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That's bullshit though. Complex pattern recognition, especially when scaled up to useful levels, is intelligence. There's more to humanity than intelligence, and every theory that alleges AI needs to be human to be intelligent just ignores how much "living thing" and "social animal" and "great ape" and "tool user" and "visual thinker" there is to our innate character that has little to do with intelligence.
  Those characteristics have given us lots of useful attributes that aren't explicitly about our abstract problem solving. Some of which computers have "better" existing solutions to in the general sense.
  If all we want is humans, we've got humans to spare. AI is about extracting specific useful human qualities relating to intelligence.
6. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-17 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Complex pattern recognition, especially when scaled up to useful levels, is intelligence.
  
  How are you defining intelligence?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
7. Re:Next trick by BarbaraHudson · 2014-11-17 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  How about we start by defining non-artificial intelligence. Is that the same as natural intelligence? Can we even define intelligence? To do so, we'd also have to define free will (since decision-making strictly by algorithms has no free will, and no innate intelligence).
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
8. Re:Next trick by narcc · 2014-11-17 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Let me guess: You're a singularity nut?
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
9. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely not.
10. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  The same way IQ tests and most GI tests do. Is that too damn crazy?
11. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-17 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  The same way IQ tests and most GI tests do. Is that too damn crazy?
  ok, so how well does your image recognition algorithm do on an IQ test? Do you think it would help to add more graphics cards?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Honestly? I haven't tried.
  If we took the visual items from an IQ test, and fed them into an image recognition algorithm, it might actually be able to pull the right results more often than chance.
13. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's a bit like defining any other relatively common, complex idea. Any definition you come up with will miss some important details, until it's ballooned in complexity to be as complex as the field you're trying to "help" in the first place.
  For a simpler case, imagine defining "car", and getting involved in an intense debate about the relevance of the internal combustion engine's history before you're done.
14. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-17 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  Honestly? I haven't tried.
  I know. :)
  
  An image matching algorithm would fail hard on an IQ test. Especially when the proctor begins reading word problems to you. Even Watson, being a giant search engine, would have trouble on an IQ test.
  
  It would be interesting to try to build an AI that could pass an IQ test, though. Your suggestion of using such a test to measure the intelligence of a computer is a good one. Your defense of weak AI sucked, though. :)
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
15. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, look, let's unmatch our inputs from our system's inputs!
  Hey, look, phantomfive is really really really stupid when I read him his IQ test in pitches only dogs can hear.
16. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-17 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Changing the input isn't going to help the image recognition algorithm be smart. Can you post something that shows you understand that, or are you in over your head on this topic?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
17. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  No, but spacial pattern matching is exactly what this sort of thing is testing. And if you fed each of the parent segments into an image recognition algorithm, I bet it would pull out the right final result for at least some similar questions.
  This is a hypothesis that requires testing, but it's still the case I'm making.
18. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-17 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  IQ tests are more involved than that, though it could be part of an IQ test
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
19. Re:Next trick by thedonger · 2014-11-17 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Are you an artificial intelligence unleashed on /. by researchers for the purpose of saying positive things about artificial intelligence researchers on /.?
  
  --
  Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
20. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  I specifically said to extract the visual components way back. But I can understand that we were talking past each other until this point.
21. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-17 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  But can you accept that you were wrong? I suspect that's a rare occurrence for you, sir.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
22. Re:Next trick by AK+Marc · 2014-11-17 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  AI is any computer program that can write a smarter version of itself. At least, that's the requirement in most sci-fi.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
23. Re:Next trick by AK+Marc · 2014-11-17 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  So all the programs that beat captchas are AI?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
24. Re:Next trick by AK+Marc · 2014-11-17 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Can we even define intelligence?
  Yes, to anyone but those who would ask such a question. One could presume they'd reject any and all answers that could be given here.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
25. Re: Next trick by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  It's called the AI effect: AI is exactly the space of unsolved problems. That said, it's probably better to refer to the statistical pattern matching approach to AI as machine learning to be more precise.
26. Re: Next trick by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  Not true, the algorithm is known, why the computer decides which feature to put weight on is unknown. That's what makes it "AI".
27. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-18 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  So let me get this straight:
  You want me to ignore the context of the things I was saying, and then acknowledge I was wrong in that lack of context?
  No.
  Fuck you asshole.
28. Re:Next trick by phantomfive · 2014-11-18 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I thought.
  
  No, what I want you to do is stop pretending you understand things when actually you don't.
  
  Because that's when learning and growth happens.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
29. Re:Next trick by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-18 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  No, I'm quite ready to admit I'm wrong, when it's outside the context of dipshits willfully misunderstanding things.
  You on the other hand can be completely and totally ignorant of even the conversation you're currently having and demand others admit you're right.
  Fuck off and grow up.
Re:AI? They taught it. by mugetsu37 · 2014-11-17 04:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Who taught you that? :p
Re:AI? They taught it. by cogeek · 2014-11-17 04:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Are you not intelligent then or did your parents, teachers, society not teach you anything, you just popped out knowing it all? Intelligence doesn't mean knowing everything, it's the ability to learn and to expand on concepts.
Jetson!!! by paiute · 2014-11-17 04:12 · Score: 1

Why am I picturing Uniblab saying "Pick a card. Any card."

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Middle School by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 04:15 · Score: 1

I remember doing this middle school. I was always baffled when other students couldn't grasp what was happening the moment I came to say "Now subtract your original number" or something similarly back-referential and how it stole their choices from them.
They weren't hard to come up with, especially once your framework was established.
1. Re:Middle School by TheCarp · 2014-11-17 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  Actually a website that does this tricked someone I know recently. I was actually engaged in a card game when they came up to me exclaiming this website could do math with the numbers in her head, and it worked every time.
  It took me about 20 seconds to figure out what was going on, and even despite suggesting "why don't you try again, write out each step" and then "try it again with X for your number, and write out each step", still more than 20 minutes to get them to see what was going on.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
2. Re:Middle School by AK+Marc · 2014-11-17 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  AI seems more intelligent in the presence of natural stupidity.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Re:AI? They taught it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 04:16 · Score: 1

I see what you're saying: if it's learned, the intelligence is bog-standard intelligence, not really artificial. If it's not learned, it's just an algorithm, thus not really intelligence. Bravo.
OOOOHHH GAAAAWWWDD..... by Thud457 · 2014-11-17 04:18 · Score: 0

Now skynet can BORE us to death!
Thanks Science.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
more like theorem proving by Champaklal · 2014-11-17 04:20 · Score: 2

it's a variant of theorem proving and relation finding exercise in prolog / horn's clause
Re:AI? They taught it. by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-17 04:20 · Score: 1

Right, because your ability to read and write English comes from zero active training. It's allllllll magic.
Computers are easy to program to do math by Russ1642 · 2014-11-17 04:32 · Score: 1

It's not especially difficult to get a computer to do some math. Get a computer to shuffle a deck of cards and I'll be a thousand times more impressed.
1. Re:Computers are easy to program to do math by smooth+wombat · 2014-11-17 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like Shuffle Master?
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. Re:Computers are easy to program to do math by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  It's not especially difficult to get a computer to do some math. Get a computer to shuffle a deck of cards and I'll be a thousand times more impressed.
  Watch the shuffle in the second video. If a "magician" tried that in front of me, I doubt I could keep from snickering.
Not tricks, illusions. by SirMasterboy · 2014-11-17 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

A trick is something a whore does for money...
1. Re: Not tricks, illusions. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Or candy.
2. Re:Not tricks, illusions. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Or cocaine (DVD only)!
3. Re:Not tricks, illusions. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Or a climate denier claims when they don't like the answer ... oh, wait.
Great plot by Thanshin · 2014-11-17 04:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

AI is made to invent magic tricks.
AI starts creating more and more complex magic tricks.
Magician stops understanding the tricks but keeps following the given steps and is as surprised as the audience about the result.
After a while, the AI starts giving really strange steps and it becomes clear that there is no explanation in current science that justifies the results of the tricks.
Humanity has meddled with incomprehensible forces, awakening He who was never dead.
1. Re:Great plot by David_Hart · 2014-11-17 05:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  AI is made to invent magic tricks.
  AI starts creating more and more complex magic tricks.
  Magician stops understanding the tricks but keeps following the given steps and is as surprised as the audience about the result.
  After a while, the AI starts giving really strange steps and it becomes clear that there is no explanation in current science that justifies the results of the tricks.
  Humanity has meddled with incomprehensible forces, awakening He who was never dead.
  When the "AI" can invent magic tricks outside of the basic programming, then I'll be scared.
  Basically, they programmed in one trick and then programmed it to compute more variations of the trick. Not much different than programming a computer to fill out a matrix based on the calculations for a single square.
  We'll know that we have a true AI when it can go from calculating new card tricks to counting cards in Vegas.....
2. Re:Great plot by tekrat · 2014-11-17 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Counting cards in Vegas is already terribly simple. Robots would never be allowed in a casino.
  
  --
  If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
3. Re:Great plot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  People seem to continue to use the terms "artificial" and "intelligence", without any theoretical or experimental foundation at all.
  Continuing repeating the same mistake is a clear sign of lack of intelligence.
  Insert more irony here...
4. Re:Great plot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  What you are describing is supervised machine learning that has very little in common with artificial general intelligence (what you are implying the audience is thinking of when they're reading "AI"). Didn't RTFA, but in this instance you're probably right. There is also unsupervised machine learning that is fairly established and can automatically deduce patterns via clustering techniques, and even some research into more general AI (e.g. those stories about modelling animal brains in silico that have been popping up more lately). Those too occasionally get reported on here.
5. Re:Great plot by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-17 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Counting cards in Vegas is already terribly simple. Robots would never be allowed in a casino.
  Yes, but the point is when you have something truly intelligent, it should be able to learn completely new things. Hence, when we have an AI which was only programmed with unrelated knowledge (like card tricks), but it can figure out the necessary -- even simple -- ideas to count cards in a casino simply due to its supposedly "intelligent" algorithms, it would have demonstrated true adaptability, I.e. intelligence.
Re:AI? They taught it. by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-17 04:54 · Score: 1

[The] ability to read and write English comes from zero active training.
Looking at the way kids write these days, I'd have to agree.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Worrying by kooky45 · 2014-11-17 04:55 · Score: 1

I just watched Colossus: The Forbin Project, and lets not teach AI anything more please!
1. Re:Worrying by WrongMonkey · 2014-11-17 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why? If an AI can be created that can do a better job running the world than human governments do, why shouldn't we let it? And honestly, doing a better job than human run governments isn't setting that high of a bar.
2. Re: Worrying by tobenemo32 · 2014-11-17 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  What is something went wrong and you wanted a human the wheels again, and the AI had different ideas? You already gave away all control.
Gno Wonder! by some+old+guy · 2014-11-17 04:58 · Score: 1

When Bristlebane hears what the gnomes have been up to he's gonna be pissed. Clockwork magicians indeed!

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Great!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 05:52 · Score: 0

Teaching robots deception, misdirection and sleight of hand seems like a great idea before they master objective morality.
Whose idea IS this? by argStyopa · 2014-11-17 05:55 · Score: 4, Funny

The first thing you want to teach an AI is "how to trick humans"?
Is that really smart?

--
-Styopa
Re:AI? They taught it. by The+Grim+Reefer · 2014-11-17 06:09 · Score: 3, Funny

[The] ability to read and write English comes from zero active training.
Looking at the way kids write these days, I'd have to agree.
tl;dr
Re:AI? They taught it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 06:26 · Score: 0

This is the very definition of AI, if they programmed the computer to do it then it would be different. The computer learned it from example the same way we do. At this rate, it wont belong before we have computers making decisions.
It took me ~ 4.5 seconds to figure that out by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 06:30 · Score: 0

here
The zigzag green lines are different lengths for 10 than they are for 12 and the extra things connected to them are obviously still there.
completely new variants by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 06:33 · Score: 0

To much hyperbole. A variant is, by definition, not something "completely new".
1. Re:completely new variants by wonkey_monkey · 2014-11-17 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's a completely new definition of the word "variant."
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:completely new variants by BarbaraHudson · 2014-11-17 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  To much hyperbole. A variant is, by definition, not something "completely new".
  It's a completely new definition of the word "variant."
  It's a variant definition of the word "variant".
  Which brings up the question - when was the last time you saw something "completely new"?
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:completely new variants by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-17 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  It is not entirely clear what they did. Was it just a weighted exhaustive search (much like many chess programs do)? Which is hardly 'AI'. Or did it figure out knowledge which would be considered AI.
Re:AI? They taught it. by jones_supa · 2014-11-17 06:53 · Score: 2

If we look at the article, the computer was taught only the specific algorithms to create a jigsaw puzzle arrangement or shuffle a deck of cards. Then the program just ran the data through it to create various optimal results. It didn't have capabilities to expand the concept of the trick, for example.
Careful, one step closer to the AI singularity by Tablizer · 2014-11-17 06:58 · Score: 2

"Damn! The pod bay doors have been open the whole time. Very clever Hal, but I'm still gonna yank your chips......hey, where did the chips go?"

--
Table-ized A.I.
To automate J. Gruber by Tablizer · 2014-11-17 07:01 · Score: 1

Politicians want to use it to trick us more often than just Iraq and ACA.

--
Table-ized A.I.
teach machines to trick humans by tobenemo32 · 2014-11-17 07:59 · Score: 1

I can see many things wrong with the idea. Are you a machine? No. I believe you. Are you going to go all self aware and kill us? No. I believe you. At least teach them to be bad liars please!
Genetic algorithms already there.. by xtal · 2014-11-17 09:35 · Score: 1

http://www.damninteresting.com...
There's some magic tricks outside of the basic programming for you. Paper is linked in there or easily searchable, and is quite interesting.
And yes, there might be reason to start to get concerned. Disruptive changes happen quickly. Eventually, we will be the ones disrupted..

--
..don't panic
Re:AI? They taught it. by AK+Marc · 2014-11-17 13:56 · Score: 1

Is single-task optimization learning? It's not learning "new" things, but answering different paths to the same solution. It's just that the path becomes magic trick, which makes it seem smarter.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re: AI? They taught it. by cogeek · 2014-11-18 03:04 · Score: 1

Nope, Skynet