Slashdot Mirror
An AI Is Finally Trouncing The World's Best Poker Players (cmu.edu)
Halfway through the "Brains vs. AI" poker competition, an AI named Libratus is trouncing its human opponents, who are four of the world's top professional players.
One of the pros, Jimmy Chou, said he and his colleagues initially underestimated Libratus, but have come to regard it as one tough player. "The bot gets better and better every day," Chou said. "It's like a tougher version of us"... Chou said he and the other pros have shared notes and tips each day, looking for weaknesses they can each exploit. "The first couple of days, we had high hopes," Chou said. "But every time we find a weakness, it learns from us and the weakness disappears the next day."
By Saturday, the AI had amassed a lead of $693,531 after 56,732 hands in the 120,000-hand match (which is being livestreamed by the Rivers Casino on Twitch). "I'm feeling good," said Tuomas Sandholm, the computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon who co-created the AI. "The algorithms are performing great. They're better at solving strategy ahead of time, better at driving strategy during play and better at improving strategy on the fly."
By Saturday, the AI had amassed a lead of $693,531 after 56,732 hands in the 120,000-hand match (which is being livestreamed by the Rivers Casino on Twitch). "I'm feeling good," said Tuomas Sandholm, the computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon who co-created the AI. "The algorithms are performing great. They're better at solving strategy ahead of time, better at driving strategy during play and better at improving strategy on the fly."
Cue the goal post shifting.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Heads-up (2 player) Texas Holdem is not the most commonly played version of poker.
Most people play Texas Holdem in groups of 6 or 9 players. Working out an optimal strategy to beat multiple opponents is a LOT harder than beating a single player. We may have a dominant heads-up poker AI soon, but I would expect it to take several more years for a dominant multi-player to be created.
tl;dr Poker isn't dead, yet.
Do we need AI to play poker? A traditional program made by a dev well aware of both poker rules and probabilities should be more than enough to defeat mere humans.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
We already have pussy-grabbing bots.
Without the psychological aspect of staring your opponents in the face it's just a calculation of odds. Takes most of what makes poker poker out of the equation.
Unlike with games like Chess (best moves can be precisely calculated) and Backgammon (simple probabilities), Poker requires adapting to human behavior, indeed varying your play depending on what you learn about your opponent. The techniques are going to be applicable to a wide range of situations. For instance, I will go so far as to claim that we will shortly be wise to use an AI to advise us on investment decisions. (In the past, the computer has been used for speed, and reacting to subtle market signals, but not so much for long term investment planning.)
The next challenge is going to be independent learning. I believe human experts still supervise the learning process of all the best AIs. Once the need for the human adviser goes away, AIs are literally going to be everywhere. Your phone AI will recognize and react to your current mental state, as well as help you overcome everyday problems. The AI in your fridge could become a huge help in keeping you compliant with your diet plans.
Isn't card counting such an effective way to win at poker that casinos ban it? And shouldn't a poker AI count cards pretty much by default? So no wonder it's effective.
If a bot can grab a pussy and you cant it just says a lot about your generation of faggy imbeciles and stupid lesbian bitches.
The election is over. Hillary lost.
Why is Trump such a little bitch?
The next purchase by all professional poker players is going to be a high end machine running AI. It is going to be the prolific 'best stock investment software' fraud all over again.
Software engineers, start your engines!
Trump, like his supporters, has a very small Johnson.
We know. We knew ages ago.
I would use it to earn money.
I spent 5 minutes looking for it using Twitch's search function on Android and can not find the damned thing. Can someone help me out.
What if...wha...oh. What if Trump's entire campaign is driven by an AI?
"Now dispute crowd sizes. Celebrities and news media will double down on their loud Hollywood mouths. It matters little in the short run but builds background distrust of them. This will be used in 4 years."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
My brother and I were playing poker against some young players, they were all about the probabilities and big into watching poker on tv. We cleaned them out pretty quick once we realized they would fold if they didn't have a good probability of winning. We'd just buy the pot.
So, will Libratus play against DeepStack (from the University of Alberta etc.), which also claims to be able to beat professional level humans...?
DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker
DeepStack becomes the first computer program to beat professional poker players in heads-up no-limit Texas hold'em
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.017...
Just don't hook it up to any missile command system.
since most stock "advisors" are actually salesmen who get commissioned for pushing certain stocks (and IIRC they'll even tell you that, albeit with the weaselistly words possible).
What worries me is that this is another case of increased efficiency in our economy. Inefficiency is a huge part of what keeps it all going. Now, it's certainly true that it's ridiculous to pay people to break windows to employ window makers; but I'm not convinced we're going to have anything for those window makers to do if tomorrow the number of broken windows drops 90%. We either need a solution to keep the money and resources flowing or it'll collect at the top like it always has.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Eliminating a few jobs here and there is fine...but making a machine that can beat me at POKER??? That' is an abomination against God! We've got to put a stop to this evil once and for all!
You geeks have gone too far! Time for you to get put back in your place!
From the goddamned dictionary, you fucktard:
"the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
This is what the term has meant since it was first used, and what it still means today. It just so happens that a lot more software development today is directly aimed at imitating intelligent human behavior than in previous years, so the term is used more often.
Them's the facts. Deal with it.
I've never used an online gambling site, but doesn't the existence of this AI kill off the fairness of these sites?
If a user is running this in his or her basement, wouldn't it pay more to just babysit the AI, acting on all the human-check capchas the sites deploy, and just doing what the AI decides?
This makes online poker effectively gold farming?
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
I think it's fantastic that we're making progress with 'smart pattern matching'. However, I still get disappointed when I read the hardware specs required to do so. Imagine for a moment: 5 humans competing in a highly complex game with several hundred inputs to each player; spatial, acoustic, thermal, temporal etc. The complex task of facial recognition of multiple players, and how that relates to our 'operating system'. Hiding your own emotions, doing the best you can with statistics, the sounds, the environment, etc. The total thermal dissipated power of the brains at the table of 5 players is on the order of 100W? The short term memory capacity on the order of kilobits? To me, this isn't even a 'game' in the sense that there's any chance for competition. No human can (as in gets the opportunity to) analyze the complete history of an individuals games. No human can spend more than ~40W of TDP at any given time, and the memory limit, while not a well defined quantity is certainly much much less than the memory available to the cluster. For this to be a fair game, they should plug the entire system into a 2,000 Calorie battery, and run it till end of each day, with a memory limited to the span of interaction with a group of players. Else it's just an exercise in how many teslas you can afford to throw at a concurrent problem.
Libratus has a poker tell. His CPU fan speeds up whenever he gets a good hand.
Have gnu, will travel.
...it throws it's cards down in disgust, and screams between fits of weeping, "But Hilary won the popular vote!!!!".
Like a real human.
I believe you can tell they are bluffing by the pitch of the processor.
I developed an algorithm that predicted the probability of a home team beating the point spread. The biggest problem was trying to ignore my ego. The percentage of profit was so small that you could only bet small amounts. I had to teach myself statistics and how to build a database . Since it used weather as a variable I was able to use the same database for discovering tidal movements in the upper atmosphere.
and bring it to the casino?
I'm probably at a 1300 ELO in chess, which means I can probably manage to not completely embarrass myself against the chess club president at Podunk High School, but reliably beat anyone who hasn't given the game some relatively serious study. I've read a dozen or so books about openings and endgames, and I keep some chess engines kicking around the smartphone and computer, but I've never had any serious interest in mastery nor any real hope of it. That said, one of the first things one notices about computer analysis of chess openings is that most paths get pruned *very* quickly. With expert play, it is very easy to turn a positional advantage into a material advantage, and this is true for human experts as well. The distribution of chess openings used in master-level play is extremely similar to the computer ranking of those openings, with the exceptions being the more obviously ridiculous things like 1. a4 ... 2. h4 that no computer would ever consider playing. It's also widely said that chess is the game where the winner is the person who made the second-to-last mistake. So while the theoretical number of possible moves in chess is large, in practice the number of viable positions is much smaller, and as long as you're sufficiently clever when evaluating positions and pruning branches then your average desktop computer will be able to completely evaluate all interesting positions up to 20+ ply (20 half-moves, so 10 moves from each player) in advance of a given position in just a few minutes, even without opening tables or endgame tables. The opening is an even worse example. The opening in chess is not just less complex than go, it's actually completely solved, and it's not inconceivable that at some point in the next century or two that the game could be solved completely. So in terms of how the game is actually played, this means that both chess engines and human players will have an "opening book" and not even start evaluating positions for the first 10-20 moves.
Chess games are as sharply decisive as they are because, I believe, most of the pieces can affect most other pieces, and because captures remove pieces from the board, which tends to further increase any advantage. It's fairly easy to evaluate at any given position, and one can prune branches extremely quickly. I don't personally have any idea how to evaluate a Go position; even on small boards I lose without knowing why. However, if we are to have a single definition of complexity, it must be the mathematical one. Go has more potential positions and more decisions, and whether or not it's easier or harder for computers or humans to actually play it is more of a tangential issue. I'm not sure on quite what basis you can dismiss that definition, but even aside from that, perhaps you can provide any example of a way in which Chess is more complex than Go, because your specific example proved rather the opposite point.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
If your bot is not running on the machine the online poker is run on, I don't see how it can be detected. Either have a human enter the cards into the ai or use image recognision, and have the AI tell the action to a human.
Then outsource the work to "earn money from your home"-drones.