Slashdot Mirror
Google DeepMind's AI Beats Humans At Even More Computer Games
An anonymous reader writes: Google DeepMind's learning algorithm has trumped human performance in an even greater range of games from the Atari 2600. The system's performance in classic games for the 80's games console has improved steadily since it was revealed in April last year (video) and a paper released yesterday shows it besting people in 31 titles.
That a computer can beat humans at a computer game.
The real question is, can a computer beat a human at a human game? Chess, yeah. Go, not so much.
Hasn't reverse engineering been around for a while now? If a computer wasn't better and faster at that than a human, that would be the true surprise.
This just in -- maybe it doesn 't require "intelligence" to win most computer games, just good memory and fast reflexes.
Computer with sub-millisecond reaction time and ability to perfectly calculate matrices, vectors and quaternions as well as predict positioning in x amount of seconds beats person. No-one should be surprised.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
I hate these stories. Games were designed (albeit evolutionarily, through generations of culture) to exploit specific human cognitive limitations in exhaustive search and look ahead, and thereby force us to fall back on things like heuristics and strategies. This makes games unpredictable and interesting.
But computers don't have those limitations. Of course they can out play us at games. They also add faster than we do.
This is all IBM's DeepBlue was, a massive, massive lookahead machine which used a little human-discovered / human programmed rules of thumb to reduce the search space and then human-discovered, human programmed rules of thumb for judging the relative goodness of each move.
The fact that computers are good at beating humans at something specifically designed to make humans perform badly is not an advancement in A.I.
Well, OK it is, but that's not saying much.