Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Intelligence Bests Humans At Classic Arcade Games
sciencehabit writes The dream of an artificially intelligent computer that can study a problem and gain expertise all on its own is now reality. A system debuted today by a team of Google researchers is not clever enough to perform surgery or drive a car safely, but it did master several dozen classic arcade games, including Space Invaders and Breakout. In many cases, it surpassed the best human players without ever observing how they play.
In other words, this is an example of good image recognition software, that's it.
Show me a game that beat a human on a strategy based game, then you have something.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This just in: Even in simplistic AAA games with bots, the AIs are better than human players, we have to dumb them down to keep the game fun.
First the prime challenge in the games you are talking about is lining up a crosshair with a pixel with a mouse and selecting fire.
If AI's had to do that they might have some difficulty. In practice the so-called AI bots already know where you are, and could keep their weapon lined up on your noggin through half the map without the need for line of sight. Tthey also get to target and fire at me without having to diddle around with a mouse or looking at the screen to see where I am.
Get a bot to actually play such a game with the same UI and world view I have (keyboard and mouse and what they can see on screen and hear on the speakers) and they tend to be quite abysmal.
Second, switch over to RTS games... and there the only way to give the AI any challenge is to stack the deck in its favor... whether its StarCraft or Supreme Commander or Wargame: Red Dragon. Or in a 4X game like Masters of Orion etc... we've yet to see an AI even really challenge a human being without giving it scripts to follow and extra resources to use.
Seriously, is there any doubt that a computer can easily defeat a human at a computer game that involves 95% pure reflexes and 5% strategy?
The article shows a picture of Breakout, and tends to focus on the wrong things entirely... especially the title, trumping that "computers can beat humans". It's fairly impressive that computers can learn the rules of a simple videogame on their own and perform well, but beating humans is not exactly an apples to apples comparison, because while we can formulate strategies to maximize points, we're also prone to making simple mistakes due to our much poorer reflexes and coordination. So AI has a massive advantage with precision reflexes and calculations that it can make much faster than humans.
Some of my previous jobs involved programmed AI game opponents for action games. As anyone who's faced an aim-bot knows, there's no real challenge for computers to perform many of the tasks humans find difficult, like putting a bullet through a moving target's forehead. I actually had do a lot of extra work to programmatically replicate the difficulties humans face when aiming at a moving target. However, collecting and processing global environmental knowledge and formulating complex strategies based on that knowledge is extremely difficult. That's why we typically build a lot of invisible hints into the environment itself for the benefit of AI, such as pathfinding-specific structures, or dynamic flags that signal potential rewards or danger. Even today, in many strategy games that involve complex ruleset (meaning brute force calculations can't work as well), the computer opponents inevitably have to cheat in order to compete with even modestly skilled players.
Early videogames have very few of these sorts of challenges because of their largely static environments and the basic nature of the games. For the most part, you just need to formulate a few simple rules for an optimal victory condition, and when combined with a computer's incredible performance, you can easily trounce the best human players, simply because a computer never gets distracted, tired, or makes silly mistakes in judgement.
Again, I'm not dissing the work the researchers did, which I found to be impressive, but the article and summary seem to be missing the point entirely by comparing them to human scores. It's fairly obvious that once a computer learns how to play with an optimal strategy, it's an absolute given that they'll score better than humans ever could.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.