Poker Pros Win Against AI, But Experts Peg Match As Statistical Draw

hypnosec writes with some positive news for Skynet watchers, in that humans still have at least a slight lead against the AIs who might one day imprison us in energy-harvesting goo tanks, or at least beating us in Las Vegas. The two-day poker showdown involving four of the world's top (human) players and a Carnegie Mellon University AI program called Claudico saw the professionals win, after several days of heads-up no-limit Texas Hold'em. "Despite the win, the poker players' $732,713 collective lead over Claudico wasn't quite large enough to attain statistical significance, experts have said. This means that the results can't be accepted as scientifically reliable thereby indicating that the "Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence" competition effectively ended in a statistical tie." On the other hand, the computers sure got over what looked like a rout by the humans.

Comments

So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Halfway through the competition, the four human pros had a cumulative lead of 626,892 chips. Though much could change in the week remaining, a lead of around 600,000 chips is considered statistically significant.

or

"Despite the win, the poker players' $732,713 collective lead over Claudico wasn't quite large enough to attain statistical significance"

Re:Is playing a game Artificial Intelligence?

[PRMan]

Playing blackjack is applied statistics. Playing poker is AI.

Re:Why non-conclusive?

[Mikkeles]

Personally, when I gamble and end up about 3/4 of a million dollars in the hole, I assume that I lost.