Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swarm AI Correctly Predicts Kentucky Derby Superfecta, Turns $20 Into $11,000 (yahoo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the incredibly-accurate-predictions dept.

New "Swarm Intelligence" platform UNU from Unanimous A.I. made a bet on the Kentucky Derby this weekend and won big. The bet is called the Superfecta and it paid 540 to 1 odds. "Swarm Intelligence" allows groups to amplify their collective IQ beyond the capacity of individuals, something that the human species hasn't been able to do because of evolutionary restraints. Silicon Valley startup Unanimous A.I. set out to answer one question: Can humans swarm, and if so can we amplify our intelligence beyond the ability of individuals? Spoiler: yes we can. According to Yahoo, "Unanimous spent the last two years building a swarm intelligence platform called UNU that enables groups to get together as online swarms -- combing their thoughts, opinions, and intuitions in real-time to answer questions, make predictions, reach decisions, and even play games as a unified collective intelligence." Already, UNU has predicted the Oscars better than experts, and predicted the NCAA college bowl games with 70% accuracy. As for the Kentucky Derby, Hope Reese, reporter for Tech Republic and the Atlantic, challenged Unanimous A.I. to use UNU to predict the winners. The group used UNU to answer questions as a unified Swarm Intelligence, narrowing the field of 20 horses down to four winners. Then it was asked to order the winners into Win, Place, Show, and Fourth. Swarm Intelligence convened again a week later after the Derby announced the post positions of the horses -- one of the four picks was replaced by an alternate.

170 comments

  1. First post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been predicted by swarm intelligence.

  2. Reading between the lines by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many other bets did they place on the Kentucky Derby?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Reading between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are the borg. Our bets are irrelevant. You will be stripped of all your money. Resistance is futile.

    2. Re:Reading between the lines by Cortexia · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's the amazing thing... They placed ONE BET and it was done in response to a challenge by a reporter at TECH REPUBLIC, who published their pick in advance - ONE PICK. This is the article that Tech Republic published 2 days before the race: http://www.techrepublic.com/ar...

    3. Re:Reading between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't amazing at all. They made a bet, and as luck would have it, it won. It was definitely a more informed bet than the average bettor would make, but I don't care how good this thing is, it will never make a living betting ponies.

    4. Re:Reading between the lines by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What is so amazing? Nyquist had 2-1 odds of winning, 5-1 for the runner up and 1-10 for third. They were predicted by the odds makers to be the top 3 horses! If you picked the horses with the best odds on every race you would "win" more than you would "lose". Common sense. Christ.

    5. Re:Reading between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can turn $11,000 into $20.

    6. Re:Reading between the lines by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      You still have to pick the top 4 finishers, in order.

      If it's that easy, place a $2 bet on the next big race using the odds.

      Odds makers are not dumb. If a superfecta pays 700 to 1, you can be damn sure it's very difficult to get right.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    7. Re:Reading between the lines by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      And also, in the last couple of years, how much did they bet, how much did they win, sum( wins ) - sum( bets )?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:Reading between the lines by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was easy. I am amazed that so many people don't understand what I am saying. You have a better chance of "winning" if you pick the top 4 horses based on the odds than if you picked the worst 4 horses based on the odds. This program got lucky but you are "more lucky" using that strategy. They picked the horses most likely to win, in the order they were most likely to place in. If you used that strategy you would "win" more than you would "lose" but you wouldn't likely make money in the long term due to the odds. Odds makers aren't dumb.

    9. Re:Reading between the lines by jools33 · · Score: 1

      about 542

    10. Re:Reading between the lines by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. For THIS RACE, the horses came in in the order the betting predicted. Quite often, they don't. EVERYONE who bet the Superfecta by picking the favorites won (there were probably at least 1000 winners). Are they all super-geniuses at picking races? No, most of them are just people who went with the favorites and got lucky, just like this AI.

      When this thing starts picking AGAINST the favorites, and consistently winning, then there will be something to talk about, Picking the favorites in one race and winning is no great shakes.

      And there are no 'odds makers' for this. The 'odds' are determined simply by dividing the total money bet on the Superfecta (after the tracks takeout, of course) by the number of winners. The 'odds' are not a probability of winning, but the expected payout if you do win.

    11. Re:Reading between the lines by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      So basically their luck was that, in this particular exceptional case, the odds makers were incredibly dumb?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    12. Re:Reading between the lines by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No, the odds makers were fine. The AI just got "lucky" in this race by playing the most likely winners. Odds makers don't care if any particular individual bet wins. They look at the aggregates. If the AI used that strategy over many horse races it would lose money due to the odds. So many stupid people here.

    13. Re:Reading between the lines by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      Great, now all you need to do is run your algorithm in reverse!

    14. Re:Reading between the lines by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Funny

      >Nyquist had 2-1 odds of winning.
      That's why Ts must be greater than or equal to twice the bandwidth to avoid aliasing.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    15. Re:Reading between the lines by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >Nyquist had 2-1 odds of winning.
      That's why Ts must be greater than or equal to twice the bandwidth to avoid aliasing.

      Arse. 1/Ts. Where's the edit function?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    16. Re:Reading between the lines by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Odds makers give worse odds for more likely winners, they do not give every similar type of bet the same odds. It's not roulette.

      The odds makers gave this particular bet odds of 540 to 1, meaning the odds makers (who know a hell of a lot better then any of us, because their livelyhood depends on it) thought the chance of this particular combination of winners being correct would be less than 1 in 540. If they would have bet on a less likely combination, it would have been more amazing if they would have won, but then they WOULDN'T have won.

      But by all means; if you are so sure of your gambling system, you should bet on the horse races, become filthy rich, purchase Slashdot and remove all comments made by stupid people who you disagree with.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    17. Re:Reading between the lines by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Invest it in one of Trump's schemes.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Reading between the lines by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      That's the amazing thing...

      They placed ONE BET and it was done in response to a challenge by a reporter at TECH REPUBLIC, who published their pick in advance - ONE PICK.

      This is the article that Tech Republic published 2 days before the race:

      http://www.techrepublic.com/ar...

      No, what's really amazing is that this is your first post as a Slashdot user and that all your posts are only discussing this particular topic. Another AMAZING thing is that you're calling a blogger on Tech Republic an actual reporter. Yeah, that's a good one.

      Now never mind that you can edit your blog on Tech Republic anytime you want without changing the publishing date, or that this Yahoo quote is completely made up:

      According to Yahoo, "Unanimous spent the last two years building a swarm intelligence platform called UNU that enables groups to get together as online swarms -- combing their thoughts, opinions, and intuitions in real-time to answer questions, make predictions, reach decisions, and even play games as a unified collective intelligence."

      Who is this "Unanimous" anyway? Is that a play on words with "Anonymous"? Seriously?

      And who is this particular "Yahoo" anyway, a blogger friend of yours on Yahoo? Your friend obviously forgot to publish his blog on Yahoo because it's not indexed anywhere. Also, thank you very much for confounding the terms "swarm intelligence" or "AI" with "wisdom of crowds".

      That's what the world needs right now, more misinformation layered unto more misinformation. Congratulations on your click-baiting skills.

    19. Re:Reading between the lines by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You are dumb. I am saying I don't have a winning system and neither does this "AI". My "system" would lose money in the long term. Christ, you are stupid. Go read it again.

    20. Re:Reading between the lines by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are no 'odds makers' involved. This is parimutuel betting. The odds are determined solely by how many people are betting on a given outcome versus all the other outcomes. In other words, the 'odds' are determined by 'swarm intelligence', and have been for centuries. This is not something new.

      If you want to use 'swarm intellegence' to place a bet, all you have to do is look at the current odds. Whatever has the lowest odds the 'swarm' has determined is the likely winner. I can't figure out what this great AI has supposedly done. Use 'swarm intelligence' to determine a likely outcome? That is called betting the favorites, and requires zero intelligence.

    21. Re:Reading between the lines by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      They were predicted by the odds makers to be the top 3 horses! If you picked the horses with the best odds on every race you would "win" more than you would "lose". Common sense. Christ.

      Makes you wonder why the oddsmakers paid out 540:1 for that common sense. Maybe the oddsmakers don't understand odds, and the entire gambling industry is just a bunch of incompetent rubes, waiting for someone with common sense and a desire for money to come along and clean the suckers out.

      Yep, I bet that's the situation.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    22. Re:Reading between the lines by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The ONLY thing odds of 540:1 means is that for every $1 bet on THIS outcome, $540 was bet on ALL OTHER POSSIBLE outcomes. Since there are literally THOUSANDS of other possible outcomes, 540:1 is actually VERY GOOD odds, and means this was the FAVORITE outcome.

    23. Re:Reading between the lines by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Wow, another stupid person. Go reread my post. There is a reason the payout was 540:1 and not 10,000,000:1.

    24. Re:Reading between the lines by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.

    25. Re:Reading between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems more like if it pays 700 to 1, the true probability is at least 2000 to 1. Why people bother betting is beyond me when the offered odds are quite so shit.

    26. Re:Reading between the lines by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You don't know how parimutuel betting works. There are no 'odds makers' to 'decide' anything. The odds are determined purely by how much money was bet on a particular outcome vs all other outcomes. Let's say there was a total of $600K spent on Superfecta betting. The 'house' (track) takes a cut of that - that is their only interest in the betting, they have no stake in the outcome at all. So say they take 10%, leaving $540K. The race is run, and at the end there are 1000 $1 winning tickets. Every ticket holder gets $540 for each dollar bet. The 'odds' were 540:1.

    27. Re:Reading between the lines by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Do you actually think he's saying he has any kind of system? He's saying that if you back the favourites every time, like this thing did, you'll lose money. Completely fucking correct.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    28. Re:Reading between the lines by dragon-file · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It isn't amazing at all. They made a bet, and as luck would have it, it won. It was definitely a more informed bet than the average bettor would make, but I don't care how good this thing is, it will never make a living betting ponies.

      Actually you might be surprised how amazing it is. I remember a statistician in high school telling me a story about those stupid guess how many beans are this jar deals. Apparently, if you gather as many answers as possible and find the average, it will be accurate within 2-5 plus or minus. Obviously the larger your sample the more accurate your results. So while I am not surprised that humans can be more intelligent in large groups, I still find it amazing.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    29. Re:Reading between the lines by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Why is that amazing at all? How do you think they come up with odds in the first place? They don't make them out of thin air.

    30. Re:Reading between the lines by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      >p>...Obviously the larger your sample the more accurate your results. So while I am not surprised that humans can be more intelligent in large groups, I still find it amazing.

      And that really calls election results into question, doesn't it? Do we leave our intelligence at the door, or is there something about partisanism that overrides common sense? "Throw the bums out, except for my guy, he's OK..."

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    31. Re:Reading between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you always go out of your way to miss the point are you just being bitter about something today?

    32. Re:Reading between the lines by jandrese · · Score: 2

      Isn't it pretty rare for the oddsmakers to get it so right? If this "Swarm AI" can repeat its performance on the Preakness and Belmont then I'll start to pay attention. Thus far we don't have enough data to separate and entirely new paradigm of cognition with dumb luck.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    33. Re:Reading between the lines by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      So, effectively what you are saying is that this was not a good test of swarm intelligence because the outcome did not provide any extraordinary proof of extra intelligence being accessed by the "swarm". They did get a correct bet, but that was only one instance, and it was not a particularly low probability compared to all possible probabilities that could have existed for that kind of bet.

      However, it doesn't mean that the swarm intelligence doesn't exist, it just means that there is only one data point, and not a particularly rigorous one, so we should reserve our judgement for future bets, preferably bets made against much less favorable odds, in order to demonstrate a pattern of successful bets that cannot be explained by pure random guessing.

      In effect, this was the entry level for the concept. If it had failed, it would have cast doubt on the idea. Now that it has succeeded, there is some reason to proceed forward with further investigation, but there is nothing yet to get excited about. The concept has not failed, but the predictive power of the theory is still "undetermined". It probably shouldn't have gotten an article written about it yet, but that's the way it goes.
         

    34. Re:Reading between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make it "amazing." The only reason this is notable is because it happened in one instance, which happened to be the first one. If they did this 100 times, and were right on the 56th time, nobody would find this "amazing."

    35. Re:Reading between the lines by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, there is absolutely NOTHING 'new' about this. The odds of every single horse race over the last centuries has been determined by 'the swarm'. The first automatic totalisator to calculate and display the odds was installed in 1913.

      The only question this thing could possibly answer is 'is betting favorites a winning strategy'? There are literally thousands of race results available that could be looked at to determine the answer to that. That does not require any kind of AI, it requires a dirt-simple spreadsheet.

    36. Re:Reading between the lines by porges · · Score: 1

      What's fascinating in general is that "horses run to their odds"; that is, at all levels, for all bets, the swarm is, in the long run, correct.

      Except for the "favorites/longshot bias", which is that people overbet long shots and underbet favorites, because they want a big payout.

    37. Re:Reading between the lines by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a real lack of mathematics skills in this thread. Maybe if you stated it, again, while trying to make it less a word problem - they'll finally get it?

      What really baffles me was the reply to you that insinuated the odds makers were off. Umm... Why no, no they were not off. They were exactly right, from the looks of things.

      I did own an office right across a giant parking lot from an off-track betting place. I spent a lot of time studying, shall we say, the horses. I actually did rather well and am one of the few people who can honestly say that they came out ahead.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    38. Re:Reading between the lines by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Umm... You know, 'unanimous' is a word, right? It means everyone's in agreement.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    39. Re:Reading between the lines by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. Thanks for stating the obvious.

      But you're missing my point, in this case the original person who created this hoax was using "Unanimous" as the name of an organization.

    40. Re:Reading between the lines by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are.

      But the guy who submitted this fake news report seems to refer to himself as a "Slashdot editor".

      So this would explain why the initial upvotes on my post later got reversed.

    41. Re:Reading between the lines by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      The "amazing" part would be if it can pull this off consistently.

    42. Re: Reading between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made a $100 superfecta bet...you do the math!

  3. No skill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Predicting bowl games with 70% accuracy shows no skill. Most of the games aren't toss-ups. Someone with a bit of knowledge about college football could have done just as well. As for the bet on the Kentucky Derby, that's called luck. I see no skill here. This story is worthless. Next story, please.

    1. Re:No skill by Cortexia · · Score: 2

      They predicted the games "against the spread", which is very difficult and resulted in 35% win against Vegas. If that required no skill, Vegas would not exist.

    2. Re:No skill by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      If you could get results like that with skill, Vegas wouldn't exist.

    3. Re:No skill by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Some people can and do. There are successful professional gamblers. Vegas exists because they are exceedingly rare and for every one of them there are a thousand who only think they are one of them. If anything, their existence makes Vegas more profitable - all the other people see them an imagine they can do the same.

      Actual professional gamblers:net
      - Only play games where some degree of real skill influences outcomes - they never play slots or roulette but you will find them at the poker tables (blackjack can be
      beaten by skill but casino's will throw you out with a few bruises if they catch you doing it).
      - Pick their games carefully and only bet when they know they are likely to win
      - Usually have some sort of insider knowledge that can swing the odds in their favor
      - Tend not to boast and actually tend to keep a low profile, it's not good to be the guy the casino knows will likely take it's money

      Once upon a time "breaking the bank" just meant winning enough that the local table can't pay and they have to resupply money to it. It's meaning has changed to mean "winning so much the casino doesn't have enough liquid assets to cover the bet" - which means that happens enough times for the phrase to have changed it's meaning. Once in a decade or 2 but still - I remember at least one news story in my teens where somebody managed it at the poker table. When that happens - the only thing that can save the casino is a whale that loses big.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:No skill by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I realize that you are probably associated with these guys and want to hype it up, but I will tell you this: if they had such a method to do this they wouldn't tell everyone about it. They would be making trillions in gambling and the stock market and wouldn't be looking for VC funding. Stop the hype.

    5. Re:No skill by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      they never play slots or roulette

      Roulette is one of the easiest games to win at although the pay of isn't high if a casino knows that you understand how it works they will kick you out.

    6. Re:No skill by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Is there some kind of joke here that I missed? Roulette is one of the dumbest things to bet on. Hell, now they even have digital boards that display 'todays hot numbers' and 'todays cold numbers' and 'last 10 spins', etc just so they can lure in suckers who think they have a 'system' to beat roulette.

    7. Re:No skill by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No joke. I think just that most people here are stupid. I just hope they don't go to Vegas with their rent money.

    8. Re:No skill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's = it is. Stop being such a moron.

    9. Re:No skill by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I realize that you are probably associated with these guys and want to hype it up, but I will tell you this: if they had such a method to do this they wouldn't tell everyone about it. They would be making trillions in gambling and the stock market and wouldn't be looking for VC funding.

      If you make trillions in gambling, on stock market or anywhere else, you'll attract lots of unwanted attention and likely disappear. Anything that gives you that much advantage makes you a threat to the system itself, so anyone with a stake in it will want you gone. Seeking VC funding is a way of cashing out without getting killed.

      Also, how do you propose utilizing a swarm-based anything without gathering a swarm?

      Stop the hype.

      They can't. People are going to flock to any even remotely plausible-sounding get-rich-quick scheme out of sheer desperation. One might wonder what it tells about the system that everyone's dearest dream is getting free from it, but that would make one a communist (which is bad), or at least that's what Americans have been indoctrinated to believe for the past century or so.

      The problem will solve itself either through misery breaking the indoctrination, technological progress making capital as a productive asset irrelevant, or continued wealth concentration draining public's buying power to the point where it can't keep economy going anymore. The last one is currently happening, but I suppose it's still possible a random event might trigger one the first two before the point of no return is reached.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:No skill by es330td · · Score: 1

      Really? Last time I checked, every bet on the roulette wheel has the same house edge (except the five way bet.) I call BS that roulette can be beaten. If it could, they wouldn't offer it.

    11. Re:No skill by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Any insight on how to win at Roulette? Please tell me you're not talking about the Monte Carlo system. It doesn't help you win.

      Roulette would be perfectly fair (still overall pointless) if it wasn't for the green. Of course in the USA they have two greens. Nothing to read into there.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    12. Re:No skill by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You have never played roulette I take it, even if you loose every spin you buy in $100 on a $5 dollar table and you can sit there at least an hour before you loose all of it unless you are making big high risk wagers.

      Once or twice a year I drive to the casino with my brothers and take $200 half for gas and food and the other half to gamble I usually come home with $100-$120 I have come home with more but not more than $200 they still made money off me but not at the roulette table $65-$85 in over priced food and drinks and I get to blow 3-4 hours in the casino with my brothers. I couldn't make a living off of it and yes we have been asked to leave because one of my brothers was winning much more than odds should have allowed.

    13. Re:No skill by winse · · Score: 1

      actually I saw some kind of documentary on a group in Europe that tracked individual roulette wheel results to use physical bias against them. they would observe the wheel to get statistical bias for certain numbers. This in turn would allow them to put the odds slightly in their advantage. Now casinos swap them out because of the bias or something like that

      --
      this sig is deprecated
    14. Re:No skill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything about this post is false.

      It will take you all of 1 minute to find the house edge at Roulette. Your anecdotes sound familiar. I hear stories from degenerates that tell the same tales.

    15. Re:No skill by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I never buy in with more than I'm willing to loose I tend to split my wagers across 5 corners because you can roll this way for a long time loosing slowly sometimes you can feel out the table and drop a few extra wagers. This works well for me but then again I don't wager big and never more than I'm willing to loose although I only go to the casino once or twice a year I have never lost, spend hours playing and break even at the table then blow a bunch of money I won't get back on over priced meals and drinks is what I usually end up doing.

    16. Re:No skill by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. 'Once or twice a year' proves exactly nothing. There are people who win a bunch on slot machines 'once or twice'. That in no way implies that you can 'beat' roulette. You can't. If you play long enough you will lose.

      Asked to leave because of winning too much? Bullshit. There are reasons you will be asked to leave, such as touching bets after they tell you to stop. Winning is not one of them.

    17. Re:No skill by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      When that happens - the only thing that can save the casino is a whale that loses big.

      Or lots and lots of old people pumping their life savings into quarter slots.

    18. Re:No skill by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      After we had been there all night and where close to leaving my brother thought he was going to just loose a spin sat down at the roulette table I had been at and placed a max wager $100 on a 11 to 1 pay out and hit it I cashed out but he want to go a few more times he hit it 4 out 6 spins lucky as hell before security came over and detains us until they inspected the table and camera to make sure he wasn't cheating and then asked us to leave after they determined he was probably not cheating and just really lucky but they weren't sure because I had been at the table all night.

    19. Re:No skill by bws111 · · Score: 1

      'Suspected of cheating' is not the same as having some 'system' to beat roulette that the casinos don't like. If you think he actually has some 'system' you are an idiot. He got incredibly lucky, unusually so, so they suspected him of cheating. Big deal. Your assertion that you can win at roulette over the long term is still flatly wrong.

    20. Re:No skill by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The questions they asked indicated there are professional hustlers and some systems that can allow you to win which might be considered cheating although they don't require you to take any specific action to alter the odds. Their concern was that after sitting there all night and not winning or loosing I had noticed a flaw in the wheel and instead of reporting it or taking advantage I left the table and passed that information to my brother who then used it to his advantage.

    21. Re:No skill by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Nope, that isn't fast enough.
      A casino that has the bank broken needs to pay that bet right now - and by definition the day's take, the content of the safe and their accounts are not enough to cover the debt. They can probably get a loan for the shortfall but they have expenses (lots of them) in the meantime. Everything from utilities to paying staff. They can't wait for the slot-machine pundits to replace their lost billions. It takes too long. They need enough to cover operating costs in the millions before the month ends - and enough to do so for a few months until their cash supplies are replenished.

      More than one casino has ended up bankrupt after one skilled player took them to the cleaners. Of course for every casino it's happened to - a million people ended up bankrupt losing to them instead, but it does happen. Just like, now and then, somebody *does* actually win the lottery - which is actually harder since there is no way to be "better" at winning the lottery, the only way you can improve your odds (by a tiny fraction) is to buy a *lot* of tickets, yet there are jackpot winners on occasion. If you explore a massive phase space enough times, every coordinate must be hit eventually.

      Neither is a good investment strategy however. It could be you - but it won't be. I wonder if people will start to get it if we explained to them that the odds of the winning numbers being 1 2 3 4 5 6 or 1 1 1 1 1 1 are exactly the same as *any* other set of six numbers. If you think those numbers are impossible coincidences that can't possibly happen - the same is true of whatever numbers you chose.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  4. Even a broken clock is right twice a day by misnohmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One win proves absolutely nothing. Show a consistent string of wins that is otherwise statistically improbable, then actually put money into the bets (rather than theoretical betting), then you have some proof. Win only 10% of the 540 to 1 payouts and you have a money machine.

    1. Re: Even a broken clock is right twice a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and who knew it would rain an hour before the derby? That surely affected the outcome, running on a wet track. Luck.

    2. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day

      Unless it's slow by a minute, then it's wrong all day.

    3. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by swb · · Score: 1

      If it keeps perfect time but is just set a minute slow, it will always be wrong.

      If it's slow because it loses time, it will eventually wrap around and be right. Now, it might take a very long time, but it will eventually be right.

    4. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by Troyusrex · · Score: 2

      If this platform could reliably make bets such as this then the last thing they'd be doing is telling everyone about it. They'd use the platform to make billions for themselves betting. Once they were set for life maybe they'd share the technology.

    5. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day

      Unless it's slow by a minute, then it's wrong all day.

      If it's slow by a minute, it's not broken,

      broken
      adjective
      having been fractured or damaged and no longer in one piece or in working order

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    6. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by The+Grassy+Knoll · · Score: 1

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day

      Unless it's slow by a minute, then it's wrong all day.

      That's why the phrase is "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day", at least it is where I live

      --
      They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
    7. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The same logic can be applied to "Financial Advisors". If they knew anything they wouldn't be working as a Financial Advisor making $200k a year.

    8. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by es330td · · Score: 1

      You couldn't be more wrong. Financial advisors are not "stock pickers." Advisors help people to plan their lives financially by guiding a person to know the best way to apply their resources to reach their goals. A true financial advisor is akin to an architect or engineer who uses a complex set of tools to help a person solve a problem they themselves cannot solve.

    9. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they were stock pickers.

    10. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Or if it's a digital clock.

      Which is why I prefer, "Even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while." Though, I've heard some variations, such as, "Even a blind man hits the hole once in a while."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by Cortexia · · Score: 1

      But that's the point - they DID show a consistent string of wins. They were challenged to predict 10 COLLEGE BOWL GAMES (against the spread) and beat all the experts at ESPN, and beat vegas, winning 135%. See: http://unu.ai/wp-content/uploa... They were challenged to predict the OSCARS, and beat 95% of the experts (movie critics). See: http://unu.ai/unu-vs-the-exper... (there are also published academic papers about this, out there). Because of skepticism, a reporter tossed down the gauntlet and said - ok, predict the Kentucky Derby. And they did! If there's not some form of intelligence here, it's the most amazing story of LUCK that I've ever heard.

    12. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by es330td · · Score: 1

      Your post implies that if an advisor knew how to make money investing they would do so rather than give other people advice. Did I misread this?

    13. Re:Even a broken clock is right twice a day by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The biggest US sporting event of the year is the Super Bowl. Yet for some reason there is absolutely no mention of this years Super Bowl. Why is that? Probably because they got it wrong. If that is the case, then they are just like all the other gamblers who claim they 'always win' by conveniently forgetting about their loses.

      If they only made 135% on the bowl games that is pretty pathetic. That means the bets were at something like 1:3 odds. In other words, damn near everybody made those same picks so that doesn't prove anything. Lots of people 'beat Vegas' at sports betting.

      The Oscars? Totally subjective how anyone votes on that. The 'experts' are not handicapping the Oscars, they are saying who they think SHOULD win, not who WILL win.

      And lastly, this farce. Again, they just picked the same favorites as everyone else. Not too challenging.

  5. More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by SafPlusPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Judging from skimming the links it looks to me like it's more of a social platform for collections of people to come to a conclusion. So instead of what is generally considered A.I. this would be more aptly called C.I. (as in, Collective Intelligence).

    1. Re:More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by Coisiche · · Score: 2

      It looks like a newfangled name for the wisdom of crowds.

    2. Re: More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A.I.

      Average Intelligence

    3. Re:More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by Gussington · · Score: 1

      So instead of what is generally considered A.I. this would be more aptly called C.I. (as in, Collective Intelligence).

      I'd call it C.G. (as in Collective Gambling). There is no intelligence with horse racing, no matter how much money you win.

    4. Re:More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd call it C.G. (as in Collective Gambling). There is no intelligence with horse racing, no matter how much money you win.

      Not quite. The bookmakers know exactly what they are doing, and do the reverse of this experiment many times per day - all over the world. As a group they adjust the odds to minimize losses and to entice bets. As soon as a large punt hits, they inform each other through their networks and adjust the odds accordingly. And that's before you get into the corruption that the riders and breeders regularly disclose once they are clear from the sport.

    5. Re:More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like B.S. to me.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_learning

    6. Re:More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't stop other AI's from making predictions. Bing Predicts picked the winner but none of the others.

    7. Re:More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. There are no 'bookmakers' involved with this. This is parimutuel betting. The 'odds' are determined simply by dividing the total money bet on a specific thing (like the Superfecta) by the number of tickets sold for a specific outcome. The 'odds' are determined ENTIRELY by 'collective wisdom'.

    8. Re:More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Cortexia you can stop posting as AC. No one is buying your hype. Being better than Bing is like winning the Special Olympics.

    9. Re:More Collective Intelligence than Artifical by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that the revolutionary big thing about ten years ago?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. *cough* no. by nadaou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It always amazes me how profoundly bad very smart people can be at basic statistics. Granted it's usually not intuitive but it can be learned.

    --
    ~.~
    I'm a peripheral visionary.
  7. Top 4 = four horses with best odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The four horses with the best odds in the Derby finished 1-4. Doesn't take much to predict that.

  8. So why didn't they bet more? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    They could have made a million if thet were that confident.

    1. Re: So why didn't they bet more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical of gamblers, they do not tell you how much they've lost (only what they 'win').

    2. Re: So why didn't they bet more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To find that out, you have to look at their tax returns. They would put down what they lost to reduce their tax.

  9. odds are collective intelligence already by sittingnut · · Score: 5, Informative

    bookmakers create and change odds based on the bets being placed, so that they themselves will not take any loses. that is odds are themselves the predictions of all who have paced bets. iow it is a form of collective intelligence.

    whole concept of predictive markets is based on harnessing the collective intelligence/information of those who are willing to take risk on a event outcome ,to predict probability of various out comes of events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    how is this so called "swarm intelligence" different?

    1. Re:odds are collective intelligence already by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Just another company trying to get VC money using the current "A.I." hype machine.

    2. Re:odds are collective intelligence already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And while you whine on Slashdot, people are out there actually getting those VC moneys

    3. Re:odds are collective intelligence already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you want to be a con artist who thinks he can con VCs, that's your choice. Most of us prefer not be frauds.
      Btw, if VCs give money for this crap, they deserve to lose it.

    4. Re:odds are collective intelligence already by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I'm not whining. I already "got" my money. I just think it is stupid and transparent. A.I and VR are the type machines of today.

  10. Err, what? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    "Swarm Intelligence" allows groups to amplify their collective IQ beyond the capacity of individuals, something that the human species hasn't been able to do because of evolutionary restraints.

    Uh, really? Humans have been relying on "collective intelligence" for thousands and thousands of years.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re: Err, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why has this changed recently? Now we seem to depend on Collective Stupidity. (Politics, Facebook, Japanese TV game shows, etc. etc.)

    2. Re: Err, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You contribute no intelligence at all. Eat a dick, asshole.

    3. Re: Err, what? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2

      Why do I get a feeling that you work for Unanimous? But what he is saying is true anyways, whether you like it or not. I know a lot of punters who won't place bets at home etc. but only at the track, where they can get the opinion, or consensus from other punters, in otherwords, a collection of individuals. Why spend two years building an "online platform" when there have been plenty of them built already. Anyone old enough to remember IRC? Hell, you could all just log into World of Warcraft and start "swarming". I would also mention StarCraft, but I think there is too much swarming in that game as it is.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    4. Re: Err, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to segregate the Japanese... All TV game shows are within the Collective Stupidity. The Japanese are just more direct with it.

    5. Re: Err, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No perjorative intended. It's just, if you wanted to make an alien go WTF, that'd be a quick way to do it.

  11. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  12. Yes, we can. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > Can humans swarm, and if so can we amplify our intelligence beyond the ability of individuals? Spoiler: yes we can.

    And the best proof is the summit of GOP's swarm intelligence: Donald J. Trump. Yikes.

  13. The most amazing IN YOUR FACE ever... by Cortexia · · Score: 1

    The amazing thing is that they made this prediction in response to a challenge from a skeptical reporter who basically said... "sure, your system predicted the Oscars, the Superbowl, the Stanley Cup, and the NBA finals... but I still don't believe it works. So, how about this - predict the Kentucky Derby." And they did!

    1. Re:The most amazing IN YOUR FACE ever... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      So what? I can pick who is going to the NBA finals most likely. Cleveland and Golden State. You can pick that in the middle of the season. They had the best records and were blowing out teams. That isn't intelligence. I'll go out on a limb and say the Penguins are going to win the Stanley Cup, and I know nothing about hockey or basketball.

    2. Re:The most amazing IN YOUR FACE ever... by doc+d'X · · Score: 1

      It was luck.

    3. Re:The most amazing IN YOUR FACE ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amazing thing is that they made this prediction in response to a challenge from a skeptical reporter who basically said... "sure, your system predicted the Oscars, the Superbowl, the Stanley Cup, and the NBA finals... but I still don't believe it works. So, how about this - predict the Kentucky Derby." And they did!

      Have you considered the reporter made an obscure-sounding challenge with a very probable answer in an effort to market them? Because that's how reporters work these days. They don't "report" on piss-ant side projects of developers unless they are paid to do so, in which case they are being paid to make the product look good.

    4. Re:The most amazing IN YOUR FACE ever... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      This is 100% correct as well. These tech "journalists" are getting paid somehow and it isn't from banner ads.

    5. Re:The most amazing IN YOUR FACE ever... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Note their username, the subject, and the totality of their posts - all in this thread. It's transparent. I'm going to assume that BIZX is not in on it. Yeah, I might be naive with that one but I'm going to hope for the best. *sighs*

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  14. Big deal by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Big deal. I did too and I know nothing about horse racing. The top three were the ones with the best odds of winning according to the bookmakers. In general if you pick the participants with the "best odds" you will "win". For example if you pick Germany over Iceland in soccer you will "win" almost 100% of the time.

    1. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were that simple, betting would not be a business.

    2. Re:Big deal by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      He said you would maximise the number of times you ""win"". He didn't say you could make any money.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Big deal by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No, it would still be a business. The point is that betting isn't about picking the "winner". It is about the odds. If you just picked the favorite to "win" every time, you would "win" more often than if you picked the least favorite, but you would lose money due to the odds payoff.

  15. There has always been swarm intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There has always been swarm intelligence, especially when it comes to predicting the outcome of sporting events. That's what gambling is, by its very definition. The collective intelligence of the swarm determines the "odds," and those odds more often than not represent the true likelihood of outcomes.

    Duh.

    1. Re:There has always been swarm intelligence by msauve · · Score: 1

      "That's what gambling is, by its very definition."

      You're referring to parimutuel betting, which is subset of gambling.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  16. Glimpse of the Future by EmbeddedSteve · · Score: 1

    Daniel Suarez: Kill Decision - read this. . . . You too will become one with the Borg. . . .

  17. Collective intelligence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If reading the comments here are any indication, I have my own useless doubts as to whether this concept will work. Now, if we average in the typical Youtube commenter, maybe we can really drive this discussion to the lowest common denominator.

  18. How Many AIs got it wrong. by zam664 · · Score: 2

    I wonder how many AIs got it wrong and did not get the story. It this is one in 540?

    1. Re:How Many AIs got it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bing Predicts picked the winner but none of the others.

    2. Re:How Many AIs got it wrong. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      "Better than Bing" doesn't mean much Cortexia. I picked the top 3 winners too, but I have never been to a horse race.

  19. Re:*cough* no. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

    It always amazes me how profoundly bad very smart people can be at basic statistics. Granted it's usually not intuitive but it can be learned.

    Probably...

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  20. Wrong assumption by a_claudiu · · Score: 1

    "Swarm Intelligence" allows groups to amplify their collective IQ beyond the capacity of individuals, something that the human species hasn't been able to do because of evolutionary restraints.

    Can you please tell me the individual who designed CERN? Or more simple who designed the whole computer/tablet you are now typing on.

    1. Re:Wrong assumption by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Not really the same thing, unless this was done by creating a team to look at front legs, and within that a subteam looking at left front legs and so on.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  21. Bro, Do You Even Bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Based on your "common sense" assertion, everyone should win at the track every time by simply using common sense.

    As it turns out, most people lose, most of the time. Why do you suppose that is?

    Superperfecta in a 20 horse race is 116,000:1 It's very rare that anyone wins the superperfecta. But, by your assessment, it's common sense to be able to pick the winner. I'm guessing you're a very wealthy man?

    1. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes. Even if there's something to this swarm intelligence and UNU's ability to reckon it, horse race betting is self-correcting.

      If they get the Preakness correct, there will be so many bets on their prediction that the payoff will drop precipitously.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by bws111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The odds of winning the Superfecta are certainly not 116,000:1. If that were the actual odds anyone would be insane to place such a bet when the payout is only $542. Those odds would be true ONLY if it were equally likely for every hose to finish in any given position. Clearly that is not true, or this AI would not have 'picked' a winner, it would just have gotten lucky with a RNG.

      I don't know what the Superfecta pool was, but it was probably at least a half a million, so there are probably around 1000 other winners just for this race.

      This program picked ONE horse race winner (so far). A whole lot of people can pick ONE winner (especially when picking favorites, which is what this did), but it is rare to be able to CONSISTENTLY do that, which is why most people lose.

    3. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No they shouldn't. I said they should "win" most of the time. If you had this "AI" always bet the "top 3" horses it would "win" more than someone who bet the "bottom 3" horses. I guess common sense isn't very common. That is why they have odds in the first place.

    4. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      If that were the actual odds anyone would be insane to place such a bet when the payout is only $542.

      Strikes me as a feature of gambling in general. The payouts, when they come, are meagre compared to the actual probabilities. I rarely see odds that are in any way enticing, which I guess is why I never gamble.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    5. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes. That is why even when playing the most "winning" strategy you will lose money in the long term unless you get very lucky.

    6. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      it is rare to be able to CONSISTENTLY do that, which is why most people lose

      If they stop now, they'll be able to claim they won 100% of the time :)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by rockout · · Score: 5, Informative

      Everyone is missing the fact that the top four horses to finish were 2-1, 5-1, 10-1, and 12-1, respectively, before the race. They were the four lowest-payout (or likeliest to win, however you want to look at it) horses in the field. Yes, you could pick the top four favorites in every race to finish 1, 2, 3, 4 in that order every time (and I suspect this fake AI would do exactly that, a lot). The crazy thing is that in this Kentucky Derby, that's exactly how the top four came in. That's extremely rare.

      Also, 540-1 for a superfecta payout is really low - again, due to the fact that the four favorites came in, in order. Make this same bet on every race and over time, you would lose money just like everybody else.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    8. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by rockout · · Score: 1

      Right, I think the idiots in this thread misunderstood you and thought you meant "win money" when what you meant was "pick the winners" more than someone who bet the bottom 3. It amazes me that there's this many people reading and posting on Slashdot that don't understand basic math when it comes to odds and gambling. But then again, I guess that's why Vegas exists in the first place.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    9. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. This is the same bet that someone who had no real interest in the race would have done had they been forced to make a prediction. The real news is lost in a sea of goofball comments about AI when the end result seems to have less to do with AI and more to do with basic math.

    10. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I'm not totally surprised by this one. Superfecta is the top 4 horses. Look at the odds of the top 4 horses compared to the rest of the field:
      1 Nyquist 2-1
      2 Exaggerator 5-1
      3 Gun Runner 10-1
      4 Mohaymen 12-1

      Any greedy algorithm may have placed the same bet. There was one other horse with the same 12-1 odds as Mohaymen. The rest of the field was longer odds.

    11. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Bad payout..high probabiity. So swarm intelligence picked the best probability. Hmmm good pick, but lets see how they do in Preakness! Keep some stats and we can look after a decade of picks.

    12. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The odds of winning the Superfecta are certainly not 116,000:1. If that were the actual odds anyone would be insane to place such a bet when the payout is only $542. Those odds would be true ONLY if it were equally likely for every hose to finish in any given position. Clearly that is not true, or this AI would not have 'picked' a winner, it would just have gotten lucky with a RNG.

      I don't know what the Superfecta pool was, but it was probably at least a half a million, so there are probably around 1000 other winners just for this race.

      This program picked ONE horse race winner (so far). A whole lot of people can pick ONE winner (especially when picking favorites, which is what this did), but it is rare to be able to CONSISTENTLY do that, which is why most people lose.

      like those stock scams. email a bunch of people, tell half of them stock X is going to rise, tell half of them it's going to fall. Drop the guys who got the wrong prediction; take the half who got the correct prediction, and repeat the process. After N iterations, you will have (1/2)^N of your original population convinced that you can forecast the stock market correctly 100% of the time.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    13. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "The payouts, when they come, are meagre compared to the actual probabilities."

      Gambling, religion and addiction are all much the same.

      Talk about the wins, never mention the losses.

      I watched my father regularly lose most of his paypacket on horses with his winning strategies.
      When he made money (which was rare) it was a big deal.

    14. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      While I do agree, I'd honestly nearly think drugs are better. At least then you're getting something for your goddamn money. ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    15. Re:Bro, Do You Even Bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOTHING is RARE when schizophrenia is bioradio and people listening are acting what they hear.

  22. Blackjack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you know how blackjack works, then you don't play.

  23. There has been a better swarm AI for centuries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has been a better swarm AI for centuries. It's called the "betting market".

  24. Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I beta-tested UNU for several months and this is absolute hype. The results of the swarm "AI" fall into 3 categories: trolls, the wrong answer and political bias introduced by the moderators. There has been an ongoing running joke in the UNU beta that whatever UNU says is wrong is right because 99% of the time that is the case, though it does come to every answer possible so this is no doubt a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.

  25. Re:*cough* no. by Gussington · · Score: 1

    And since when has picking horses been a test of intelligence? I'd like to see how the swarm goes at Beal's conjecture.

  26. I must say . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that I welcome our new Swarm Intelligence Overlords.

  27. Big Woop: Exactly Same as Track Odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at the track odds, the top four finishers in order went off at 2-1, 5-1, 10-1, 11-1. Any newbie betting the Superfecta for the first time would have made the same bet. Even the morning line was 3-1, 8-1, 10-1, 10-1. Move along. Nothing but hype here.

  28. /. plumbs a new low in article descriptions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "Swarm Intelligence" allows groups to amplify their collective IQ beyond the capacity of individuals,
    > something that the human species hasn't been able to do because of evolutionary restraints.

    Srsly, keep on like this and you'll start loosing readers.

    This is absolute brain-dead, aim-for-the-gullable-and-naive sensationalist horseshit.

  29. Need more data by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    One superfecta win proves nothing. If it's so great then try running it on 30 or 40 races and publish the results, then i'll believe their work. I'm betting there is too much unknowable information in horse racing for it to work reliably.

    1. Re:Need more data by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      And if it DID work, why would they make it public at all? They would make billions off of betting and the stock market.

    2. Re:Need more data by es330td · · Score: 1

      These people have not learned from history. IIRC, Fisher Black and Myron Scholes who came up with the Black-Scholes option pricing model took it first to Goldman Sachs and then went public with a published paper to win the Nobel Prize.

  30. How is this any different than a Slashdot Poll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this any different than a Slashdot Poll?

    1. Re:How is this any different than a Slashdot Poll? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Cowboy Neal is not, inasmuch as I am aware, a race horse.

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

    "Swarm Intelligence" allows groups to amplify their collective IQ beyond the capacity of individuals, something that the human species hasn't been able to do because of evolutionary restraints.

    We've actually been doing this for thousands of years. It's called market economics.

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. stupid millenial AI hipsters reinventing the wheel by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    hmmm sounds like the Delphi method to me

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  34. repeat this, then come back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With only one attempt - that's not very convincing.

    Now repeat this result many times and show that it's actually better than separate human experts...

  35. unanimous is a word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.merriam-webster.com...

    hope this helps.

  36. Outcome was best odds to worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outcome was completely the best probability though. Just list favorites in order of best odds to win super. Horrible payout this yr, but still nice to win

  37. Something humans haven't been able to do?? by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    "Swarm Intelligence" allows groups to amplify their collective IQ beyond the capacity of individuals, something that the human species hasn't been able to do because of evolutionary restraints.

    Because our brains is not an immense colony of cooperating neurons? Each cell is an organism. Humans are a superorganism.

  38. FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, let's not talk about all the times it failed and lost money

  39. Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I try this on Mega Millions ? Lottery?

  40. UNU has made many odds defying picks. AMAZING! by Cortexia · · Score: 1

    The most impressive thing is not this single win, but that they have shown a STRING of wins. They were challenged to predict 10 COLLEGE BOWL GAMES (against the spread) and beat all the experts at ESPN, and beat vegas, winning 135%. See: http://unu.ai/wp-content/uploa... They were challenged to predict the OSCARS, and beat 95% of the experts (movie critics). See: http://unu.ai/unu-vs-the-exper... (there are also published academic papers about this, out there). Because of skepticism, a reporter tossed down the gauntlet and said - ok, predict the Kentucky Derby. And they did! If there's not some form of intelligence here, it's the most amazing story of LUCK that I've ever heard.

  41. How about elections? by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Considering the Trump campaign, "Collective Intelligence" seems to me to be an oxymoron!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  42. Re:UNU has made many odds defying picks. AMAZING! by bws111 · · Score: 1

    Are you paid to write this drivel, or are you just that gullible? There is nothing impressive or amazing about any of this.

    Lets start with your subject line. Odds defying picks? Where? Every pick they made was for a favorite, or exactly who the odds said should win. WTF is amazing about that? They didn't 'defy' a damn thing.

    College bowl games. If you can correctly predict 10 out of 10 winners, beating the spread, your payout should be thousands of times your original bet, not a piddly 1.35 times. The fact that they made only 1.35 times the original bet means they placed 10 individual bets, picking the favorite every time. ANYONE can do that (and did), which is why the payout was about as low as it could possibly be.

    Beat ESPN analysts. That really proves nothing. ESPN analysts are not there to tell you who to bet on, they are there to provide entertainment and get people to watch the show or read the web site. A bunch of guys sitting around agreeing that the favorites are going to win does not exactly make for compelling television. So, they INTENTIONALLY pick some teams they know are likely to lose just so they have something to talk about (and also give the viewers and fans something to talk and argue about). Just about any sports fan can make more accurate selections than the ESPN analysts, because the analysts aren't even trying to be accurate.

    The Oscars. The only way to correctly predict the winners of the Oscars is to focus on the VOTERS, just like in any election. But movie critics (who UNU supposedly 'beat') and movie fans don't give a crap about voters. Movie critics say who they think SHOULD win and why, not who they think WILL win. Their focus is on the movies, actors, etc not on the voters. And, just like the ESPN analysts, sometimes they say things they don't actually believe, just so they have something interesting to talk about. Saying UNU predicted the winners more accurately than the critics is really stupid, as the critics weren't even trying to predict winners.

    The Kentucky Derby. Here again, all they did was make the same picks as everyone else. That does not require any sort of intelligence, wild animals have been 'following the herd' for a very long time.

    What is conspicuously missing is any mention of Super Bowl L, which fell right in between the college bowl games and the Oscars. Are we expected to believe that UNU didn't make any prediction about the biggest US sporting event of the year? Most likely, as in all the other cases, they simply picked the favorite and LOST. But they can't say that, because then gullible dopes like you may not fall for their 'amazing' string of successes. I wonder how many other things they picked completely wrong, but have neglected to mention.

  43. gimme a call by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    when it predicts trump gets the republican nomination.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.