Slashdot Mirror
AI Wins $290,000 in Chinese Poker Competition (bbc.com)
An AI program has beaten a team of six poker players at a series of exhibition matches in China. From a report on BBC: The AI system, called Lengpudashi, won a landslide victory and $290,000 in the five-day competition. It is the second time this year that an AI program has beaten competitive poker players. An earlier version of the program, known as Libratus, beat four of the world's best poker pros during a 20-day game in January.
Who'se your daddy?
I don't know that this is the official moment when AI becomes smarter than us,
but I do suspect strongly that current AI could handily beat Donald Trump at the task of rationally governing the world's most powerful and dangerous nation, and I for one know which one I would vote for.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
It is heads up, no limit.
See, your mistake is assuming that those things (facial expressions and past actions) matter in a game where the winner is very clearly almost always the person with the best chances at winning based on the cards they hold.
This ignores the fact that a great many no-limit hands do not go to showdown. The worse hand wins frequently.
the prize money will go to Strategic Machine, a firm founded by the duo.
That seems a little unfair. If I had won, the prize money would not have been given directly to my parents. If a machine wins, it should receive the prize. If it cannot actually spend it, then that would appear to be a rather basic limitation to its AI-ness. But it wouldn't be a problem for the competition or whoever awarded the prize.
You would also hope that the authorities would keep an eye on the money to ensure that whoever had access to the AI didn't defraud it of its winnings. Maybe it is time for machines to have property rights. And if they are going to be awarded assets, maybe they should be taxed on them, too.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Computers definitely respond to bluffing. When someone puts down a large bet, they have to decide whether to raise or fold, just like the rest of us.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you bet solely on stats, you might do OK against a bunch of amateurs, but pros will wipe the floor with you. Because they not only know the stats backwards, but can also read your tells, and know when and how to bluff you.
I'm curious as to how a computer does that, but I don't for a moment doubt that it's possible.
Look at it the other way... a machine has no tells (apart from maybe calculation time) so it removes an ability from the opponent, in effect lowering the opponent from pro to amateur playing the stats, and humans might know the stats to within a couple percent but the computer will know them exactly.
"Bring them down to your level and beat them with experience"