Slashdot Mirror


An AI Learned Magic: the Gathering, Now Creates Thousands of New Cards

merbs writes: Reed Milewicz, a computer science researcher, wowed a major online Magic: The Gathering forum when he posted the results of an experiment to "teach" a weak AI to auto-generate Magic cards. Milewicz had trained a deep, recurrent neural network—a kind of statistical machine learning model designed to emulate the neural networks of animal brains—to "learn" the text of every Magic card currently in existence. Then he had it generate thousands of its own.

He shared a number of the bizarre "cards" his program had come up with, replete with their properly fantastical names ("Shring the Artist," "Mided Hied Parira's Scepter") and freshly invented abilities ("fuseback"). Players devoured—and cheered—the results.

104 comments

  1. A bit disappointed by Warma · · Score: 1

    This seemed cooler than it actually is, as practically everything the program generates is completely nonsensical. As such, the end result does not seem special compared to everything else "AI's" have supposedly created in the past.
    Hopefully the randomness hits home a couple of times and gives someone actually useful ideas.

    1. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As is everything else that as been "AI". I've not been impressed at all by any "AI" system yet. All they have done is feed a computer millions upon millions or billions of datasets. They still don't actually learn or know, they guess.

      While on the flip side, you can teach a 2 year old child what a tree is and they'll be able to identify a tree in pretty much any setting.

      I'll be impressed when and only when you can show a computer a tree in someone's yard, then show them a park and have it point out other trees. Then I'll be impressed.

    2. Re:A bit disappointed by nine-times · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm disappointed for entirely different reasons. I read, "An AI Learned Magic..." and thought, "Wow! What could that mean? Did it learn how illusionists perform their tricks? Are they claiming it somehow learned real magic? This should be interesting!"

      And then I continued reading.

    3. Re:A bit disappointed by div_2n · · Score: 1

      Sounds human-like to me.

    4. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You severely underestimate just how much training goes in to a 2 year old's brain in order to identify trees. Not to mention the billions of years of the evolutionary equivalent to systems engineering that went in to the wetworks between his/her ears.

      This guy spent a day dickering around with some existing programs and let it run overnight on ordinary computer and ended up with some interesting and quite non-trivial results.

      Computers in any capacity have been around less than a century and they've come pretty far in what might as well be a single planck time interval on a biological evolutionary scale. If you're not impressed now, your children probably will be when they're your age now.

    5. Re:A bit disappointed by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. It made nonsensical cards early into its learning process.

      Later on it made cards like this:

      Light of the Bild
      2WW
      Creature - Spirit
      Flying
      Whenever Light of the Bild blocks, you may put a 1/1 green Angel creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
      2/2

      ...which are pretty good.

    6. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This achievement is somewhere between "ordinary stuff we are accustomed to computers doing" and "new, awesome, and useful". Such achievements are necessary in order to get to "new, awesome, and useful," but inasmuch as they are not already there, they just fall flat for most people.

      We want artificial general intelligence that will be completely subservient to us while simultaneously being superior to us. That is what we have always wanted from computers. When you start saying "hey look, I have gotten a bit closer!" people are going to feel let-down if the output is something technically new but practically valueless. That's just how humans are.

      Feel free to explain why people should be more excited about this than they are. You won't make them more excited by doing so.

    7. Re:A bit disappointed by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      This seemed cooler than it actually is, as practically everything the program generates is completely nonsensical. As such, the end result does not seem special compared to everything else "AI's" have supposedly created in the past. Hopefully the randomness hits home a couple of times and gives someone actually useful ideas.

      I watched a demo (can't find it now) of TempleOS where... God spoke to you!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    8. Re:A bit disappointed by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0

      Agreed. That's why I call these systems a.i. (artificial ignorance) as opposed to A.I. (Actual Intelligence)

    9. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, still looks like nonsense to me. ;)

    10. Re:A bit disappointed by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      This must be the first time the phrase "seemed cool" has been used in reference to Magic the Gathering. :)

    11. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. The world is quite mundane to those who don't see the big picture.

    12. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > s. Not to mention the billions of years of the evolutionary equivalent to systems engineering that went in to the wetworks between his/her ears.

      This is why the GPs post was commenting on the usefulness metric. Thanks for hijacking with a nonsequitor. You could use some AI.

    13. Re:A bit disappointed by xevioso · · Score: 2

      Well it's a good start.

      But...

      There are no Angels in green. They are all white, black and maybe red.

      Cards like this only work as part of the whole if the rest of the set takes cards like this into account. Otherwise it's all random and unbalanced.

    14. Re:A bit disappointed by apparently · · Score: 1

      Well it's a good start.

      But...

      There are no Angels in green. They are all white, black and maybe red.

      Are you sure about that?

    15. Re:A bit disappointed by aaron4801 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this sounds like little more than a Markov bot. You can find them online. No "AI" needed.

    16. Re:A bit disappointed by Megane · · Score: 1

      Just think of the possibilities of Bayesian MTG cards... now instead of being full of GET TAXI CAB IN INDIA, the /. submission queue could be turned into an entertaining and enjoyable* game!

      * for certain values of entertaining and enjoyable that may not apply to people who don't like CCGs

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    17. Re:A bit disappointed by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      I was actually pretty impressed at how close it came to creating sensible cards, and pretty funny when it made small errors that made the cards absurd (such as the card with, "At the beginning of each player's upkeep, sacrifice a white Zombie creature").

      Getting a computer to generate understandable language is an extremely difficult problem, and all neural networks have an issue with long-tail errors (that is, a small fraction of the results are always ridiculously inaccurate, no matter how good your neural net is). Getting a computer to generate meaningful language is an order of magnitude more difficult than that.

    18. Re:A bit disappointed by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      This seemed cooler than it actually is, as practically everything the program generates is completely nonsensical.

      Partly because of this, I doubt that there is really much "AI" going on here. To me, this looks very much like simple probabilistic Markov chaining, with maybe a couple of rules to demark meaningful game elements that can be treated as a unit.

      A bit more than that, maybe, but not much.

    19. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest difference between the AI and human Magic players is that the AI gets more pussy.

    20. Re:A bit disappointed by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      I agree. There are VERY basic rules and patterns that would be one line of code that would have improved it immensely. This was practically random with almost no hope of purposely coming up with a valid sounding card. Something like black cards can't do direct damage to the other player without a secondary effect or trigger condition. That's a universal law of MTG and yet it prints a black lightning bolt.

    21. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's what I was thinking too.
      Perhaps if the AI was to produce something an average person could understand the significance of.

    22. Re:A bit disappointed by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Well, he phrased it poorly. There are multicolored Angels that include Green (they're all also white, which has always been the preferred Angel color). There are no mono-colored Green Angels; there are three in black (and last seen with the reprint of Fallen Angel in Eighth Edition), and one in red (Akroma, Angel of Wrath) and one in blue (Illusory Angel). White, meanwhile, has *84* mono-colored angels.

    23. Re:A bit disappointed by Rei · · Score: 1

      Even when they weren't interesting, they were often quite entertaining. For example:

      Roon War Medoma
      G
      Instant
      Name a card. You gain 1 life.

      Hahaha... pre-school voice: "Very good, Billy! You get a cookie!" ;)

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    24. Re:A bit disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    25. Re:A bit disappointed by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      I'm working on a system that can do things like that, but its Strong AI not weak, totally different. It dynamically adjusts and learns and has (will have) 'hyper-complex' 3D vision. The whole design ethos between strong and weak is totally different. - Strong essentially follows and reverse engineers the human / animal mind and brain. Strong is built around a 'dynamic core' or machine consciousness. Strong generally requires a high performance, custom designed and built multi-processor computer.
      Lets face it Weak AI is (mostly) crap. Also weak AI is far more likely to ultimately develop into unpredictable spontaneously sentient 'rogue' AI's like Skynet from the Terminator movies...

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    26. Re:A bit disappointed by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Agreed. That's why I call these systems a.i. (artificial ignorance) as opposed to A.I. (Actual Intelligence)

      Or, to quote a few Science Fiction novels: A.S. = Artificial Stupid.

      Although, that does seem a bit harsh. The poor machine is "dancing as fast as it can".

    27. Re:A bit disappointed by TheViffer · · Score: 1

      Looks to me then we are due for a blue and green angel. Maybe the AI is not that dumb after all.

      --
      -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
    28. Re:A bit disappointed by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I can also add that *all* multicolor angels count white as one of their colors.

  2. Sigh. by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is exactly why we need a moral framework for AI development.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Sigh. by JoeDuncan · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Useless MtG cards are an existential threat to humanity...

    2. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh shut up.

    3. Re:Sigh. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Yea. We'll get on that as soon as we attain World peace, end hunger, and eliminate all disease.

    4. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Useless MtG cards are an existential threat to humanity...

      That would be a different card game...

    5. Re:Sigh. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      that's not stoping Wizards from printing crap like Scion of Ugin and Comet Storm...

      *grumbles*

      Somewhere out there, a tree is working tirelessly to produce air for us to breathe, then it gets cut down and turned into crap bulk cards.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:Sigh. by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Uh, both of those cards are fine for casual. The reason Magic is awesome is cards the Spikes out there consider "jank" can be a lot of fun for casual magic players.

    7. Re:Sigh. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I think casual is where it gets less fun because if one casual player in a pool of several casual players pulls better cards than everyone else, especially at common and uncommon, pulling a Comet Storm in your rare slot in a pack of Modern Masters 2015 is that much worse.

      I don't think Wizards is just going to sit by and let this happen though. My huge hope is that with standard going to two, two set blocks coming soon with Origins, this is going to make WotC R&D tighten up sets and have less chaff.

      I think if they really wanted to balance better for casual, they should stick better cards in preconstructed decks.

      It'd also help with the problem where even slightly less casual play like FNM events get less painful in the wallet with great cards being near giveaways. It'd be great for game shops on the second hand market too. I'm guessing that enough people would more willing to spend at 15 bucks per card than at 30 or 40. The price on Thoughtseize completely sucks at 20 bucks, and prior to the reprint in Theros it was *60*.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  3. Every Time You Read About AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time you read about "AI" like this and you dig into the details, you find that the programmer set up so many parameters on it that it is nothing like AI.

    I'm betting this one is no different.

    1. Re:Every Time You Read About AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term "artificial intelligence" doesn't indicate how much is "artificial", and how much is actually "intelligence".

      A software system that's coded to handle many different cases is 100% artificial and 0% intelligence. But it still qualifies as artificial intelligence, since it does combine both aspects of AI.

    2. Re:Every Time You Read About AI by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      Every time you read about "AI" like this and you dig into the details, you find that the programmer set up so many parameters on it that it is nothing like AI.

      I'm betting this one is no different.

      Incorrect AC. OI (Organic Intelligence) has boundaries and parameters, so will AI. You can't escape it. Physics means there are limitations to all things in the physical world. Even an AI controlled one. With out rules, there would be no way to accomplish anything.

      As for the posting that is referenced, I understand these games of chance which are similar to any other (poker, flipping coins, slot machines, etc all are based on a probability/chance framework). If an AI system designs the probability cards, then it would also be able to calculate the best sequence of cards to own or use to win the game, if that is your goal.

      So after the AI creates the game of chance and provides the best sequence to win (or increase your probability to win), what was the point exactly?

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    3. Re:Every Time You Read About AI by markhb · · Score: 1

      Get the AI's addicted to cardboard crack like MtG, so they will be distracted from killing us. Roko's Basilisk solved!

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
    4. Re:Every Time You Read About AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like, you have no idea what AI is or what it does, aside from half-remembered scenes from Blade Runner or A Space Odyssey.

    5. Re:Every Time You Read About AI by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      The AI will run the numbers and realise that with Wizards of the Coast's operating profit, the only way to win is not to play...

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    6. Re:Every Time You Read About AI by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Roko's Basilisk
      1
      Artifact Creature - Dragon
      For every round prior to summoning Roko's Basilisk, if you did not waste at least 1 mana during each prior round, you lose 1HP per round since the beginning of the game. If no player remembers how many rounds have been played, you lose.
      99/99

    7. Re:Every Time You Read About AI by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      A software system that's coded to handle many different cases is 100% artificial and 0% intelligence. But it still qualifies as artificial intelligence, since it does combine both aspects of AI.

      All that means is that the term "AI" is totally meaningless. A digital alarm clock is 100% artificial and 0% intelligence too.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Don't tell Mark Rosewater about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then he might REALLY build his MARO-BOT.

    And then where would we be?

  5. MTG Revival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one just dusted off the old cheque book and ordered a box of 1000+ random MTG cards, as well as 300 basic lands. Can't wait for them to show up! Black Lotus | Shivan Dragon | Ball Lightning | You're done man!

    1. Re:MTG Revival by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      To bad I didn't stop to think about what I was doing when I threw out my old magic cards I could of dusted off some of those alpha beta and filled up my check book.

    2. Re:MTG Revival by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      I miss my dual lands. Once upon a time they were cheap...

    3. Re:MTG Revival by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      Is it time to sell?

    4. Re:MTG Revival by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      I'm far enough out of the loop that I have no idea about very recent market trends, just that they're higher now than ten years ago and seem relatively stable.

    5. Re:MTG Revival by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      They are on that list of things I wish I hadn't thrown out along with an unopened millennium falcon model I tossed when I went off to college. The alpha beta and unlimited editions appear to be fetching some good prices if you happen to have a hoard of them you could make out like a bandit.

    6. Re:MTG Revival by xevioso · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but you are unlikely to get a Black Lotus in your random box. In almost all cases when people sell boxes of "random" cards they have taken out all the good ones to sell individually. Just sayin.

    7. Re:MTG Revival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I'll be lucky to not get a shabby box filled with playing cards from the 70's with drawn on imitation Gandalf heads...Will let the thread know!

      and FINE:

      Mox Ruby | Mox Ruby | Mox Ruby | Mox Ruby | Mox Ruby | Shivan Dragon | Ball Lightning | You're done man!

    8. Re:MTG Revival by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Mox Ruby | Mox Ruby | Mox Ruby | Mox Ruby | Mox Ruby

      You just played five cards of the same type from your deck. You lose by default; you are only allowed a maximum of four cards of any name that is not a basic land.

  6. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

    -- C.S. Lewis

    That is to say, yes. The opinion is changing as the kids who played pokemon and MTG grow up and continue to play, and the people who have apoplectic fits that these adults weren't swilling beer sitting in front of the tv 4 hours a day like "real adults" die off from heart attacks and strokes.

  7. waitbutwhy article by vinn · · Score: 1

    So with all the recent fuss over AI and some respectable folks being scared to death of it, I happened to stumble on this great article on waitbutwhy:

    http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/...

    It's a long two parter, but well worth the read. If you want the tl;dr part, skip to part 2 and search for "Robotica". With that in mind, we're going to end up with a planet of mile-high stacks of Magic: The Gathering cards.

    --
    ----- obSig
  8. Merbs the Slashdotter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what abilities that card has....

  9. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you trying to be funny? Or are you just dumb?

    "Bear with me" is a very common English phrase, and it has nothing to do with the animal:

    32. bear with, to be patient or forbearing with:
    Please bear with me until I finish the story.

    Pokeymen is a media and merchandising phenomenon that includes card games, video games, cartoons, and many other marketables.

  10. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Are you trying to be funny? Or are you just dumb?

    The same question might be asked of you.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. So typical of Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of trying to solve problems and help people, they always use tools to generate profits or kill. That is the way of their kind. They hate us.

  12. Disappointing by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Informative

    What I thought from the description is that a neural network was taught how to play Magic and somehow generated new cards by trying to play with them. Think for instance of a program that tries to come up with a new chess piece by coming up with a movement pattern, playing games with that piece and trying to figure out whether it'd be useful or interesting to play with.

    This on the other hand looks like something like a markov chain generator. Amusing nonsense that can give humans fun ideas.

    1. Re:Disappointing by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      When I started reading, I thought it might be about the way the manufacturers keep releasing new cards to rebalance the game. An episode of Extra Credits on YouTube talked about how they constantly fiddled with the game so that there was always a new potential super-tactic to learn, but after a while it would no longer be quite so super, hence the need yo keep playing and keep learning. The way the guy was waxing lyrical about it, I'm assuming no-one else has an algorithm anywhere near capable of copying them. If you made an AI that copied that part of what they do, there would be several major customers for it -- not just the niche card makers, but also the major MMO makers.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  13. Now Creates Thousands of New Cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a friend of mine suggested to play that game I couldn't learn already existing cards. Now I have to learn thousands more? :\

    1. Re:Now Creates Thousands of New Cards by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Eh, play drafts in whatever the current standard set is. You'll run into a couple hundred cards maximum, all using the same few mechanics, and because everyone's trying to draft out of a very limited pool, you don't need universal knowledge...you just need to understand the game enough to build something with the pieces that are dropped in front of you. Plus it's cheaper and no asshole trick decks. Do it at the start of a block and there's a VERY small set of stuff to learn.

      (sure it helps to be aware of what nasty tricks might be available, but it's really not that essential, and you can pick it up real fast)

      As far as I'm concerned draft is the only fun way to play, haven't in a while now but still. Like ten bucks will get you a night of 5-10 games on the same level playing field as everyone else. Wizards' business model around draft games is to compete versus movies for friday night entertainment, and it's not really all that exploitative by comparison.

  14. Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just created a new bitcoin exchange!

  15. What about Magic: the Buttcrack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did that guy ever get un-banned from tournaments?

  16. No we aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are all going to be cyborgs, and it will be awesome!!!.

    No diseases, no handicaps, cheap replacements for whatever gets damaged, superior instrumentality, limitless cognitive abilities, true space travel, mind-machine virtual reality....

    It will be amazing. We will transcend every human limitation and become something new entirely.

    *THAT* is how A.I. will destroy the human race. Not by genocide, but by helping us evolve into something entirely post human.

    (there may be some modern-day humans still around, in something like a historical wildlife preserve.....those will be the children of people who can't let go of their familiar reference points in order to reach for something better. In order to fly, the bird must first release the branch.....you cowards who white-knuckle it can live in a zoo and fling poo at tourists).

    1. Re:No we aren't. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      (there may be some modern-day humans still around, in something like a historical wildlife preserve.....those will be the children of people who can't let go of their familiar reference points in order to reach for something better. In order to fly, the bird must first release the branch.....you cowards who white-knuckle it can live in a zoo and fling poo at tourists).

      What makes you think that we are not doing that now?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:No we aren't. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      We are all going to be cyborgs, and it will be awesome!!!.

      No diseases, no handicaps, cheap replacements for whatever gets damaged, superior instrumentality, limitless cognitive abilities, true space travel, mind-machine virtual reality....

      It will be amazing. We will transcend every human limitation and become something new entirely.

      *THAT* is how A.I. will destroy the human race. Not by genocide, but by helping us evolve into something entirely post human.

      (there may be some modern-day humans still around, in something like a historical wildlife preserve.....those will be the children of people who can't let go of their familiar reference points in order to reach for something better. In order to fly, the bird must first release the branch.....you cowards who white-knuckle it can live in a zoo and fling poo at tourists).

      Indeed, resistance is futile.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Draft nights are a pretty useful way to go out and be sociable even if you don't have a group of people to go with. So appeal++ for people who don't go out with friends most nights, I guess, but I wouldn't call ccg players social rejects.

  18. OK by xevioso · · Score: 1

    What would be amusing would be to get to the point where a person could generate their own set, print them out with the approximate levels of rarity necessay for a set, and then have a draft with the random cards.

    Who wouldn't like a card with MointainSpoink and Tromple?

  19. Scenario Generator by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It would be nice to see the same level of logic applied to scenario generators for games with large, persistent worlds. Skyrim and GTA games are what come to mind soonest for me. It would really pump up replay value. Probably neither of those games really needs it, but it would be a nice feature for a competitor.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. AI Opportunities in MTG by Agilus · · Score: 1

    There are a few interesting ways AI can be applied to the game of Magic the Gathering - this is one, and it's cool to see this guy's project, and the results.

    I've done a little bit of thinking in this area, but more in the area of making an AI play with the goal of searching for new competitive deck lists.

    I posted on my blog about my approach a while back: Getting Your Computer to Make an Awesome New Magic the Gathering Deck

    Another interesting tack would be to see if you can write an agent to create single cards with mechanics that actually move second-tier decks into first-tier competitiveness, looking at the current metagame. WotC probably wouldn't take your advice on new cards, though, as they probably prefer to keep card design in-house.

    Haven't had the time to actually try to implement something (too busy futzing with Minecraft modding), but maybe one of these days I'll make it happen.

    --
    hackshop.com - My tech hobby project hub
  21. Disappointed Dipshits by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No one cares that you are not impressed, and no one cares about impressing you. Please don't bother posting this drivel.

    Obviously this is not "real" intelligence. If and when that is developed, you can bet that it won't have anything to do with Magic cards. That you even expected that when reading this story means that you not only have no idea what AI research is all about, or much of an idea about programming in general, but also it speaks volumes about what your actual intelligence level is. Your maturity may also be called into question due to the content of your post.

    You'd think with the level of tech expertise on here, you would have fewer people confusing the programming concept of AI with the science fiction concept of AI. If hard AI existed that's what the headline would be about. So far it does not; please refrain from polluting this forum with observations to that effect.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Disappointed Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't need to act so high-and-mighty -- he's got a decent point. When I saw the headline I actually got excited. AI could be used to run thousands of deck-on-deck simulations to learn reams of information on different useful strategies. Instead he used it as a random name generator that pointlessly assembles cards. Now, combine the two concepts and you might actually be approaching the AI systems that are actually used to make the real cards in the first place.

    2. Re:Disappointed Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The post you responded to is a level-headed opinion of an average slashdotter. It wasn't rude. It even expresses some optimism.

      You are rude. You insult other people. It is ironic how criticize someone else's maturity while maintaining absolutely none yourself. There is no redeeming value in your post. You seem like an angry child who can type.

    3. Re:Disappointed Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /me gives the hug Tenebrousedge desperately needs

      There there. There there.

    4. Re: Disappointed Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit hypoxia to point that out while going out of your way to do the same thing though isn't it...

    5. Re:Disappointed Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He used a neural net, not a random name generator. Otherwise it would not be described as AI. Running deck-on-deck simulations is also not AI. Why is it that people that are so fundamentally clueless are compelled to post on this topic, especially after determining that it is not what they think it is?

      This article is about an unusual application of a programming technique, mostly novel for its entertainment value. It's almost certainly not the best way to find new card mechanics. It has absolutely nothing to do with hard AI. Zero. It's like reading about a robot that propels itself by means of a pogo stick and being disappointed that flying cars aren't widely available.

    6. Re:Disappointed Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC because [a] you are, and [b] I don't like to have throw-away comments in my history.

      Level-headed opinion? You must also have no idea how far the GP diverges from the topic. Your conception of AI must necessarily be limited to soft science fiction. The article is describing a programming technique, a very old programming technique, which yes, was once thought to be an avenue for hard AI, but is in fact no more related to the concept than genetic algorithms or simulated annealing. It is no closer to hard AI than a markov chain generator, and probably not even a good solution for the problem. It is an unusual application for an algorithm that happened to have amusing output.

      And you guys are upset because it's not HAL.

    7. Re:Disappointed Dipshits by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Oh piss off. If computer researchers keep using the term "AI" to mean "anything a computer does that the programmer didn't actually hard code into it" they deserve all the scepticism and mockery they get.

      You need to come up with a more accurate name for "the programming concept of AI " that doesn't involve the term AI, if there is not any actual Intelligence involved.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Disappointed Dipshits by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      How about you Singularity fanboys stop using the term "AI" to refer to programming tricks then?

      Just a thought.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Disappointed Dipshits by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      AI researchers always fall back on this weird version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy when confronted with the self evident truth that there is currently no such thing as Artificial Intelligence.

      "Oh, no it's not real, hard AI, it's something totally different which we just like calling AI even though there is no intelligence involved."

      Just call it something else.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  22. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

    As a programmer I don't have free time for games so I'm in the dark about them.

    I don't see what the one has to do with the other. "As a programmer", I have friends who have been interested in various card games and RPGs for years, and I've also partaken every now and then.

    Well I've always heard that these kind of games are classified as being for "social rejects" only.

    Classified by whom? None of these games work well for someone who isn't social, since they can't be played alone.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  23. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The same question might be asked of you.

    Oooh! Zing! Why can't I ever think of these snappy comebacks until hours later.

  24. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Why can't I ever think of these snappy comebacks until hours later.

    Probably because you're anonymous.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  25. Reminds me of my old D&D Random Character Crea by NominalLoss · · Score: 1

    When I was first learning to code a long time ago I created a D&D character creator program. I thought a cool feature would be having the ability to randomly generate a character including attributes, class, proficiencies, spells, traits - literally everything. It was a lot of fun to start a new campaign and have each player use a randomly generated character. It really took you out of your comfort zone to play a ranger that was a dual wielding specialist with daggers or a wizard with pathfinding skills. It also made for strange parties - not your usual min/max fest.

  26. More than the other normal cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to admit the normal cards aren't a product of a sound mind either, no?

  27. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous comments don't trigger notices for your account. Most people participate on forums periodically and on multiple threads. You're myopic and so delusionally self important that you might recognize it one day.

  28. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoosh!

  29. Next by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    His next research project is to make an AI that defends against copyright infringement lawsuits.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  30. Re:No longer a game for "social rejects"? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Umm... They do on mine? I get notices in the upper-right telling me about messages, I read those messages, and in those messages I get comments from the ACs. Otherwise I would never know when they replied and I would be unlikely to reply to them - and I do.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  31. magic the gathering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no intelligence, no life!

  32. M:tG metadata by Guppy · · Score: 1

    Huh. I wonder if you could do anything interesting by linking the card database to the various databases of card sellers -- price, stock and sales rate, number of editions in which the card appears.

  33. No, it didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It basically spit random letters together.

  34. knack for generating profoundly useless cards by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    I noticed that the network, now more fully trained, could generate meaningful, novel cards. However, it also had a knack for generating profoundly useless cards. Here are a few snippets from the output:

    * When $THIS enters the battlefield, each creature you control loses trample until end of turn.

    Not a bonus, but plenty of creatures have slightly negative effects if they cost less to summon than their positive traits might suggest.

    * Whenever another creature enters the battlefield, you may tap two untapped Mountains you control.

    Weird, but if you're prevented from tapping mana sources for some reason...

    * 3, : Add 2 to your mana pool.

    Useful if you're tricked into a large mana-burn situation. It effectively reduces all mana-burn down to 1.

    * Legendary creatures can't attack unless its controller pays 2 for each Zombie you control.

    Oddly specific, but not useless.

    1. Re:knack for generating profoundly useless cards by Linsaran · · Score: 1

      I noticed that the network, now more fully trained, could generate meaningful, novel cards. However, it also had a knack for generating profoundly useless cards. Here are a few snippets from the output: * When $THIS enters the battlefield, each creature you control loses trample until end of turn.

      Not a bonus, but plenty of creatures have slightly negative effects if they cost less to summon than their positive traits might suggest.

      True, but having your own creatures lose trample is unusual as a drawback to a card, it's a very very situational penalty.

      * Whenever another creature enters the battlefield, you may tap two untapped Mountains you control.

      Weird, but if you're prevented from tapping mana sources for some reason...

      Due to a combination of how the stack works, and the majority of mana sources having the timing priority it's pretty much impossible to prevent a player from tapping a mana source for mana. The best you can really do is force the timing of it so that it's not useful for your opponent to tap a source for mana, for example if you use a spell or effect that would cause an opponent's land to be tapped, they can always tap it to add it's mana to their mana pool before the effect that causes it to be tapped resolves. Now whether that mana is usable before it drains away at the end of a phase is up for debate, but you can't really be prevented from tapping for mana. Again the above card text falls into the category of 'this could be legal on a card but it's a weird card'

      * 3, : Add 2 to your mana pool.

      Useful if you're tricked into a large mana-burn situation. It effectively reduces all mana-burn down to 1.

      Mana burn was removed in the 2010 rules update. So again this is a rather strange ability

      * Legendary creatures can't attack unless its controller pays 2 for each Zombie you control.

      Oddly specific, but not useless.

      Agreed, still kind of a weird ability though.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
  35. Neural Networks by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    The term for this technique is 'neural network'. It's one of the oldest concepts in AI research. I don't know what planet you live on that "actual intelligence" is remotely close to being a reality. Doubly so because no one can even define what that is, and the results of all AI research to date are merely defining what intelligence is not. We do not need to invent a new term for people who are so ignorant of the field that they cannot tell it apart from science fiction. Even if "strong AI" existed, neural networks would probably still be considered AI, both for historical reasons and because even something with the intellectual capacity of a jellyfish (or the average slashdotter) still counts as some kind of intelligence. Your replacement term would be what? Artificial idiot, perhaps?

    Whether or not neural networks prove a fruitful avenue for AI research, I must also reiterate that this story is in no way an attempt at an advance towards "strong AI". It's something a bored programmer did which happened to have interesting output, for certain subsets of "interesting". For a non-technical forum, somewhere that doesn't get advances in AI research posted regularly, where total ignorance of the field is a given, the confusion of concepts would be justifiable. On Slashdot it's inexcusably ignorant, and being prideful of that ignorance, derisive as the AC I responded to, is frankly offensive.

    All that said, and while I do not regret going beyond the bounds of politeness or even snarkiness, I feel that I did express myself badly and hurriedly. I don't think the comment deserves its rating, and that the subsequent AC remarks were better. I should have explained myself more fully.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.