There will be mistakes and deaths, but they will be far fewer than we have today.
I think you're right. The uncomfortable part, though, is that when you're driving the car, you feel that you have the control over avoiding problems and accidents (I say you *feel* because in reality, there are some accidents you can't avoid). On the other hand, if the software BSODs and drives you off the bridge, you had nothing to do with it at all. Every time you get into one of these cars, you're putting your life into the "hands" of a piece of software/hardware.
Even on planes, which are very dependant on correctly functioning computers, there's a feel that the pilot could do something to save the day in case there's a massive failure on the plane.
Top and Task Manager are not end-user functions, to think such is to misrepresent who "end-users" are...they are not developers (if the product is to become successful with actual end-users).
Are you saying that you only use those features when developing applications?! I use them on a regular basis, to see which application is slowing me down, to kill an unresponsive task, to see if it's time to reload Firefox:)... Sure, those are "advanced" uses, but they are still end-user features. Even my dad has learned how to kill Acrobat Reader when it hangs his system, and let me tell you, he's the furthest thing from a developer.
Again, I ask you to list the functional requirements for this feature.
I think the original poster described it well. But, to summarize: I'd want to see the list of apps that Firefox is currently running and their memory usage, and to be able to kill the misbehaving ones if they won't let me shut them down themselves.
Your list of must have features are not end-user features. Why should the browser be bloated with what are debugging and profiling tools?
They *are* end-user features, though. In Windows, you can open the task manager and see how much memory each task is taking up. Would you also argue that that is a bloated debugging feature? Is 'top' a bloat? Firefox is a little OS of its own, running multiple extensions and web apps, I don't see why a feature that's standard on every OS is so non-applicable to Firefox.
Since every instance of Firefox is different because of the extensions, the only way to figure out how to keep the memory usage down is by having these memory-reporting features available. It's a necessity, as much as it is on other platforms.
Do you know what a "NAS" is? It's a network attached storage. All of these have USB connections, and require an always-running PC to attach to in order to provide the data to the rest of the network.
colossus was the absolute peak of what we could do, if anyone got hold of that it would be a dangerous weapon
That would be like developing the atomic bomb, and then promptly destroying every trace of it because it's a dangerous weapon. Countries that develop new dangerous weapons tend to keep them around (and use them) to keep the advantage they got from having it.
Plus, if it were me in that situation, I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to gloat and say "hehe, look, we had a computer all along that was deciphering all your messages":). But, I guess that's just me.
Colossus documentation and hardware were classified from the moment of their creation and remained so after the War, when Winston Churchill specifically ordered the destruction of most of the Colossus machines into 'pieces no bigger than a man's hand'; Tommy Flowers personally burned blueprints in a furnace at Dollis Hill.
Why would they do this after the war? Wouldn't they want to explore the technology for other uses, and profit further from the leadership in this field they developed? I mean, what's the reason for hiding (and, worse, destroying!) their code-breaking machine after the war has ended?
Double, in and of itself, is a high percentage, but not necessarily a high amount.
The amount really doesn't matter much to anybody but existing shareholders. The ones who bought before it doubled still made a lot of money, no matter how low the stock is!
But so long as they sit there wasting 20W per core or whatever at idle, it's just wasted power.
Well, that's where AMD shines -- the current 65nm X2s idle at under 4W, and that's for 2 cores... So, each idles at 2W. Yeah, they are still wasting power, but not nearly as much as you make it sound. That's 17KWh per year if you run a core *all the time*, or about $1 a year in electricity.
Mind you, Intel, idling at 3-4 times that power is still "free" for even your high-end home user with a couple of computers running all the time.
Strange, all the game store around here have had full shelves of Wii consoles for the past few weeks.
I wish I lived there. Over here (Toronto), I've been going through stores on a weekly basis, and couldn't find a single one. I finally caved in and paid the "ebay tax" and got one there. They've finally dropped to a decent price range on ebay, and you can pick one up for about $30-$40 over the retail price. I guess that's the first sign that they will soon start appearing on the shelves and staying there for a day or two at a time.
Being that it's a finite resource we will need for ourselves, being that we're putting our nation at risk by selling it, being that we sully our national pride and international reputation by selling it to the US, it really would be wise for our government to keep it in the country.
As Chavez shows regularly, all you have to do is regularly provide some retoric against the US, and you can sell them as much oil as you want.
Of course we do, it's called public opinion and it affects everything.
No, it's called "your opinion". It only affects everything once a lot of people think the same as you, and I'm pretty sure people on Josh's side are in the vast minority in this case.
can you really have a damn good mirange card that wouldn't perform as a high-end card if you jacked up the GPU frequence, RAM speed and added a huge noisy fan?
That's simply how the technology works... If you take almost any processing chip, and jack up its frequency and the supporting RAM speed, you'll get more processing power out of it (until you reach the point where it doesn't work). And, with more power, you need a bigger fan.
But, it definitely works the other way, too -- you can dial it all down, and it'll be cool and quiet, and performing slower. Everybody gets to pick what they want, and everybody should be happy:).
Many of the already existing S775 boards for Intel will upgrade the CPU to Core2 (perhaps with a BIOS flash).
That's actually not true... As Intel introduced new CPUs going into the 775 socket, they started using more and more of the pins that were originally "reserved" -- so, in order to support a new CPU, certain additional pins would have to be tied high, low, to calibration resistors, etc. What that means is that while *older* 775 CPUs will run fine on new motherboards, the new 775 CPUs will not run on old motherboards, even with a BIOS flash.
For example, my 775 board running a P4 3GHz will only take P4s up to 3.4GHz or so, since the faster ones were new 65nm cores with slight pin changes. Pentium D, and newer Cores are also in the excluded category..
I don't know a single Windows user who uses the sleep feature on a regular basis, because it's not 100% reliable.
I don't know how that's possible (you don't know many people with laptops running windows?), but around here at work, every one of us uses the sleep feature many, many times a day. I never had a problem.
I've had a problem coming out of hibernate about once a year (I use hibernate at the end of the work day, and then resume in the morning), so that generally works very well, too.
Although CPUs have gotten better in the past year, GPUs (particularly ATI's) still keep outdoing each other in just how much power they can suck.
You're talking about the high-end "do everything you can" GPUs... ATI is dominating the (discrete) mobile GPU industry because their mobile GPUs use so little power. Integrating (well) one of those into a CPU should still result in a low-power chip.
Contrary to what many people believe, a college education is not meant to teach you practical job skills. It is meant to educate you about life.
I disagree. Looking for a job in technical field, coming out of college with no practical job skills is going to ensure that you do not get the best jobs out there. Most new-grad interviews in the technical field concentrate on questions that try to figure out how well the candidate understands the basic concepts. It doesn't matter how well you are educated about life, if you don't understand what you're being asked, you will not be able to demonstrate that you are indeed a smart person (extraordinary cases excepted, as always).
Since virtually all sports involve variable conditions, comparing one performance to another is technically imperfect. Consider the absence of black players in Babe Ruth's day, or the presence of steroids in the Barry Bonds era. On its face, the new Scrabble records seem to avoid such problems. No one's juicing in Scrabble. Points in a game are just points in a game, and Michael Cresta scored 830 of them.
Right... but, then you look at all the new words that have been added in the latest update of the dictionary, and you have to admit that it was much harder for an old-time player to score high when he wasn't allowed to use words like ZA, ZUZ, ZAS, and ZEP!
- It is stepping on one or more patents for completely obvious or barely novel ideas I believe at this point paranoia is not only rational but optimistic and gin and tonic are my only defense since I can't afford lawyers, guns, and money.
Why worry? All you've learned from this example is that you can make a good product that violates someone's pattent, make billions off of it, and then pay a fine of $100 million. And, if you don't make any money by selling that product, then nobody will be asking you to pay the license fees, either... they'll just make you stop selling it -- which you should, anyway, since you're not making money:).
Sure, the patent is just plain stupid -- but that's just one problem. The other is, Apple is paying a one-time fee to continue to make many more millions on this product that is violating the patent! So, they don't have anything to worry about any more, either. In fact, they can just continue to happily violate other patents and pay fines if those work out.
Again, the entire purpose of probability is to deal with situations where you don't know everything. There's nothing special about the difference between "knowing your cards" and "knowing everybody elses" that makes computing odds impossible. You just get different odds.
No, you're missing a step here. There are many ways to calculate a probability of your hands being the best, and they all depend on the distribution of hands you assign to each opponent. If you know that your opponents play every single hand, then the probability that you will win with your hand is very different from knowing that you are playing against opponents that only see the flop with KT or better. To go into the extreme case, if you know that your opponent will playing nothing but AA, then it becomes a simple case of calculating your odds of winning. If you know that he plays 75% AA, and 25% something else, it's again simple math to figure out the odds. But, deciding whether the players is in the first group, or the second group, that's hard -- that's where you look at betting patterns, previous behaviour, current behaviour, etc. to map the player to the most optimal hand probability distribution.
That's where most of the complexity of the poker AI research comes from.
Again, you're trying to talk up some kind of disadvantage for odds computation for the AI because they can't compute a number the other players can't compute either.
Right, and their disadvantage is that I will look at my opponent and make a much better estimate at the likelyhood of him holding AA vs a bot. In fact, that's a big advantage of a good player vs. a bad player. It's relatively easy to teach anybody how to figure out what the best play is when you're a 50% favourite in a group of 4 (to use your example), but it's very hard to teach him to figure out that he's a 50% favourite in all but the simplest of the cases (it's easy to figure it out if you're drawing to the nuts, for example).
Two players colluding in a game is a huge problem. Even a marginal advantage equals to a huge advantage played out over time.
That's only true if the players are so even in skill that they would be breaking even over a long period of time, and this little edge would push one of the ahead. In general, having a very small edge in flush draw situations (and other situations that provide even smaller edges), will not be enough to overcome the edge of being a better player. So, the better player might not win as much (or if the cheating player is the better one, he might win a little more), but over the long run, the skill will prevail -- because the decisions made in the situations where the other two cards make no difference have a much better impact on the final result.
So, you could say it's a problem, but a huge one -- I disagree. I'd say it's not even a significant one at this point.
(1) Knowing the cards of the other players is a small, but significant, advantage. Say you've got two hearts, and your three buddies have a heart each.
In general, 4 guys playing together on one table is hard to do more than a couple of times before being flagged on any poker site. So, in most cases, you'll have one buddy telling you that he has no heart (affecting the odds by a negligible amount, and the most likely case), one heart (affecting the odds somewhat, and somewhat less likely to happen), or two (which will happen the least often, but will affect the odds the most).
So, it depends on the definition of 'significant', but the small edge that you will get once every 40-50 hands (probability of having 2 suited cards and flopping a flush draw) is not enough to significantly influence the outcome of a game. The quality of your play in other 39 out of 40 hands will be the deciding factor.
(2) Much more serious, though, is collusion in betting.
Very true, but this is, luckily, very easily detectable when all of the cards are visible to somebody (i.e. the online poker room operator). So, it's something that you can only do for a short period of time before somebody complains to the operator, at which point it will be obvious that two players playing at the same table a lot are following this particular betting pattern.
It's probably only worth it to sit down at the highest limits possible, try to scoop some money very quickly, and never play again at that site. It's not a very good long-term strategy, though:).
Completely untrue; you clearly don't understand the purpose of "odds" and probability. The entire purpose of "computing odds" is to deal with situations where you don't have all the information. If you had all the information, you wouldn't be "computing odds", you'd just know.
Well, I have to say that it is you who is mistaken about the purpose of the odds. See, even if you know everybody's cards, you don't *know* who is going to win, because there are 5 community cards that have to be dealt.. (in later betting stages, there will, obviously, be less of them still to come). What you are doing when you see everybody's cards is calculating the odds of a player winning the hand once every community card has been dealt. Those are the odds you typically see on TV poker shows. Of course, once the final card (typically called river) has been dealt, then you *know* who wins.
It is a simple matter of math to compute odds based on knowing what you have, and not knowing anything else. You can't compute the odds they show you on the TV when they know all the hands on the table, but the human gamblers don't get those odds either.
Clearly, it is not a simple matter of math to compute the odds knowing what you have an not knowing anything else. Having two 3s on a flop of 456, you can easily compute the odds of you hitting a straight, a set, or a full house. Calculating the odds of that actually being the best/winning hand is completely different. This is where you have to know the probability of the opponents holding hands that could beat you even if you hit something (or the probability of them holding something that can't beat a pair of 3s). That is an exercise in psychology, recognizing betting patterns, gut feel, etc. much more than any kind of simple math. Good AI bots actually use some pretty advanced math trying to do this prediction (which results in percentages assigned to every possible hand that an opponent could have), but there's obviously still a lot of room for improvement. The UofA poker site has some very good papers on the methods that they have used in the past...
First, they are playing limit hold'em, which I assume to mean pot-limit texas hold'em.
Limit and pot-limit are not the same. Pot limit is closer to no-limit because you can bet a variable amount, but you are limited to raising by the current size of the pot. On the other hand, in limit poker, you can only raise by a fixed amount (X preflop and on the flop, and 2X on the turn and river, in most kinds of limit hold'em).
I used to like to play Euchre and the like online, but too many times it became obvious my opponents were communicating to each other and ruined the fun.
In Euchre, knowing your partner's cards is a *huge* advantage... In poker, knowing the cards on one other player at the table gives you such a minute advantage that it's irrelevant in almost all practical cases.
Sure, if all of the players at the table except for you are sharing their cards, and are not required to conceal it (i.e. they can openly collude in their betting patterns against you), then they have a big advantage. But, that's, again, not very realistic.
Simply put, unless you knew someone's reputation as being a bluffer, you would play the opening hand always the same way. Aren't we forced to program the "AI" of the poker software as being this simple heuristic?
The simpler the heuristic used to program the AI, the easier it will be for the opponents to figure out what the bot is doing. A big difference between a mediocre and a successful poker player is the ability to vary their play significantly enough to make it hard for anybody to put them on a hand, without impacting their play so much that they are playing badly.
There are many systems out there developed for the "opening hand", as you call it, and, yes, AI can be programmed to play the preflop game fairly well. After the flop, though, it's a whole different game. As much as you hear about odds in poker, it's not a matter of simple math to calculate them and play "proper odds". You only know your odds if you know exactly what every opponent has... and that's where simple heuristics fail miserably.
Finally, even if you knew everybody's cards, even then you would still need to know exactly how much they are going to bet (if at all) in the future rounds of betting in order to calculate the exact odds you're getting. Once again, that's something that's still very hard for bots to figure out.
Slashdot Mirror
There will be mistakes and deaths, but they will be far fewer than we have today.
I think you're right. The uncomfortable part, though, is that when you're driving the car, you feel that you have the control over avoiding problems and accidents (I say you *feel* because in reality, there are some accidents you can't avoid). On the other hand, if the software BSODs and drives you off the bridge, you had nothing to do with it at all. Every time you get into one of these cars, you're putting your life into the "hands" of a piece of software/hardware.
Even on planes, which are very dependant on correctly functioning computers, there's a feel that the pilot could do something to save the day in case there's a massive failure on the plane.
Top and Task Manager are not end-user functions, to think such is to misrepresent who "end-users" are...they are not developers (if the product is to become successful with actual end-users).
:)... Sure, those are "advanced" uses, but they are still end-user features. Even my dad has learned how to kill Acrobat Reader when it hangs his system, and let me tell you, he's the furthest thing from a developer.
Are you saying that you only use those features when developing applications?! I use them on a regular basis, to see which application is slowing me down, to kill an unresponsive task, to see if it's time to reload Firefox
Again, I ask you to list the functional requirements for this feature.
I think the original poster described it well. But, to summarize: I'd want to see the list of apps that Firefox is currently running and their memory usage, and to be able to kill the misbehaving ones if they won't let me shut them down themselves.
Your list of must have features are not end-user features. Why should the browser be bloated with what are debugging and profiling tools?
They *are* end-user features, though. In Windows, you can open the task manager and see how much memory each task is taking up. Would you also argue that that is a bloated debugging feature? Is 'top' a bloat? Firefox is a little OS of its own, running multiple extensions and web apps, I don't see why a feature that's standard on every OS is so non-applicable to Firefox.
Since every instance of Firefox is different because of the extensions, the only way to figure out how to keep the memory usage down is by having these memory-reporting features available. It's a necessity, as much as it is on other platforms.
Do you know what a "NAS" is? It's a network attached storage. All of these have USB connections, and require an always-running PC to attach to in order to provide the data to the rest of the network.
That would be like developing the atomic bomb, and then promptly destroying every trace of it because it's a dangerous weapon. Countries that develop new dangerous weapons tend to keep them around (and use them) to keep the advantage they got from having it.
Plus, if it were me in that situation, I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to gloat and say "hehe, look, we had a computer all along that was deciphering all your messages"
From the article:
Colossus documentation and hardware were classified from the moment of their creation and remained so after the War, when Winston Churchill specifically ordered the destruction of most of the Colossus machines into 'pieces no bigger than a man's hand'; Tommy Flowers personally burned blueprints in a furnace at Dollis Hill.
Why would they do this after the war? Wouldn't they want to explore the technology for other uses, and profit further from the leadership in this field they developed? I mean, what's the reason for hiding (and, worse, destroying!) their code-breaking machine after the war has ended?
Double, in and of itself, is a high percentage, but not necessarily a high amount.
The amount really doesn't matter much to anybody but existing shareholders. The ones who bought before it doubled still made a lot of money, no matter how low the stock is!
But so long as they sit there wasting 20W per core or whatever at idle, it's just wasted power.
Well, that's where AMD shines -- the current 65nm X2s idle at under 4W, and that's for 2 cores... So, each idles at 2W. Yeah, they are still wasting power, but not nearly as much as you make it sound. That's 17KWh per year if you run a core *all the time*, or about $1 a year in electricity.
Mind you, Intel, idling at 3-4 times that power is still "free" for even your high-end home user with a couple of computers running all the time.
I wish I lived there. Over here (Toronto), I've been going through stores on a weekly basis, and couldn't find a single one. I finally caved in and paid the "ebay tax" and got one there. They've finally dropped to a decent price range on ebay, and you can pick one up for about $30-$40 over the retail price. I guess that's the first sign that they will soon start appearing on the shelves and staying there for a day or two at a time.
As Chavez shows regularly, all you have to do is regularly provide some retoric against the US, and you can sell them as much oil as you want.
Of course we do, it's called public opinion and it affects everything.
No, it's called "your opinion". It only affects everything once a lot of people think the same as you, and I'm pretty sure people on Josh's side are in the vast minority in this case.
That's simply how the technology works... If you take almost any processing chip, and jack up its frequency and the supporting RAM speed, you'll get more processing power out of it (until you reach the point where it doesn't work). And, with more power, you need a bigger fan.
But, it definitely works the other way, too -- you can dial it all down, and it'll be cool and quiet, and performing slower. Everybody gets to pick what they want, and everybody should be happy
That's actually not true... As Intel introduced new CPUs going into the 775 socket, they started using more and more of the pins that were originally "reserved" -- so, in order to support a new CPU, certain additional pins would have to be tied high, low, to calibration resistors, etc. What that means is that while *older* 775 CPUs will run fine on new motherboards, the new 775 CPUs will not run on old motherboards, even with a BIOS flash.
For example, my 775 board running a P4 3GHz will only take P4s up to 3.4GHz or so, since the faster ones were new 65nm cores with slight pin changes. Pentium D, and newer Cores are also in the excluded category..
I don't know how that's possible (you don't know many people with laptops running windows?), but around here at work, every one of us uses the sleep feature many, many times a day. I never had a problem.
I've had a problem coming out of hibernate about once a year (I use hibernate at the end of the work day, and then resume in the morning), so that generally works very well, too.
You're talking about the high-end "do everything you can" GPUs... ATI is dominating the (discrete) mobile GPU industry because their mobile GPUs use so little power. Integrating (well) one of those into a CPU should still result in a low-power chip.
I disagree. Looking for a job in technical field, coming out of college with no practical job skills is going to ensure that you do not get the best jobs out there. Most new-grad interviews in the technical field concentrate on questions that try to figure out how well the candidate understands the basic concepts. It doesn't matter how well you are educated about life, if you don't understand what you're being asked, you will not be able to demonstrate that you are indeed a smart person (extraordinary cases excepted, as always).
Right... but, then you look at all the new words that have been added in the latest update of the dictionary, and you have to admit that it was much harder for an old-time player to score high when he wasn't allowed to use words like ZA, ZUZ, ZAS, and ZEP!
Why worry? All you've learned from this example is that you can make a good product that violates someone's pattent, make billions off of it, and then pay a fine of $100 million. And, if you don't make any money by selling that product, then nobody will be asking you to pay the license fees, either... they'll just make you stop selling it -- which you should, anyway, since you're not making money
Sure, the patent is just plain stupid -- but that's just one problem. The other is, Apple is paying a one-time fee to continue to make many more millions on this product that is violating the patent! So, they don't have anything to worry about any more, either. In fact, they can just continue to happily violate other patents and pay fines if those work out.
No, you're missing a step here. There are many ways to calculate a probability of your hands being the best, and they all depend on the distribution of hands you assign to each opponent. If you know that your opponents play every single hand, then the probability that you will win with your hand is very different from knowing that you are playing against opponents that only see the flop with KT or better. To go into the extreme case, if you know that your opponent will playing nothing but AA, then it becomes a simple case of calculating your odds of winning. If you know that he plays 75% AA, and 25% something else, it's again simple math to figure out the odds. But, deciding whether the players is in the first group, or the second group, that's hard -- that's where you look at betting patterns, previous behaviour, current behaviour, etc. to map the player to the most optimal hand probability distribution.
That's where most of the complexity of the poker AI research comes from.
Right, and their disadvantage is that I will look at my opponent and make a much better estimate at the likelyhood of him holding AA vs a bot. In fact, that's a big advantage of a good player vs. a bad player. It's relatively easy to teach anybody how to figure out what the best play is when you're a 50% favourite in a group of 4 (to use your example), but it's very hard to teach him to figure out that he's a 50% favourite in all but the simplest of the cases (it's easy to figure it out if you're drawing to the nuts, for example).
That's only true if the players are so even in skill that they would be breaking even over a long period of time, and this little edge would push one of the ahead. In general, having a very small edge in flush draw situations (and other situations that provide even smaller edges), will not be enough to overcome the edge of being a better player. So, the better player might not win as much (or if the cheating player is the better one, he might win a little more), but over the long run, the skill will prevail -- because the decisions made in the situations where the other two cards make no difference have a much better impact on the final result.
So, you could say it's a problem, but a huge one -- I disagree. I'd say it's not even a significant one at this point.
In general, 4 guys playing together on one table is hard to do more than a couple of times before being flagged on any poker site. So, in most cases, you'll have one buddy telling you that he has no heart (affecting the odds by a negligible amount, and the most likely case), one heart (affecting the odds somewhat, and somewhat less likely to happen), or two (which will happen the least often, but will affect the odds the most).
So, it depends on the definition of 'significant', but the small edge that you will get once every 40-50 hands (probability of having 2 suited cards and flopping a flush draw) is not enough to significantly influence the outcome of a game. The quality of your play in other 39 out of 40 hands will be the deciding factor.
Very true, but this is, luckily, very easily detectable when all of the cards are visible to somebody (i.e. the online poker room operator). So, it's something that you can only do for a short period of time before somebody complains to the operator, at which point it will be obvious that two players playing at the same table a lot are following this particular betting pattern.
It's probably only worth it to sit down at the highest limits possible, try to scoop some money very quickly, and never play again at that site. It's not a very good long-term strategy, though
Well, I have to say that it is you who is mistaken about the purpose of the odds. See, even if you know everybody's cards, you don't *know* who is going to win, because there are 5 community cards that have to be dealt.. (in later betting stages, there will, obviously, be less of them still to come). What you are doing when you see everybody's cards is calculating the odds of a player winning the hand once every community card has been dealt. Those are the odds you typically see on TV poker shows. Of course, once the final card (typically called river) has been dealt, then you *know* who wins.
Clearly, it is not a simple matter of math to compute the odds knowing what you have an not knowing anything else. Having two 3s on a flop of 456, you can easily compute the odds of you hitting a straight, a set, or a full house. Calculating the odds of that actually being the best/winning hand is completely different. This is where you have to know the probability of the opponents holding hands that could beat you even if you hit something (or the probability of them holding something that can't beat a pair of 3s). That is an exercise in psychology, recognizing betting patterns, gut feel, etc. much more than any kind of simple math. Good AI bots actually use some pretty advanced math trying to do this prediction (which results in percentages assigned to every possible hand that an opponent could have), but there's obviously still a lot of room for improvement. The UofA poker site has some very good papers on the methods that they have used in the past...
Limit and pot-limit are not the same. Pot limit is closer to no-limit because you can bet a variable amount, but you are limited to raising by the current size of the pot. On the other hand, in limit poker, you can only raise by a fixed amount (X preflop and on the flop, and 2X on the turn and river, in most kinds of limit hold'em).
In Euchre, knowing your partner's cards is a *huge* advantage... In poker, knowing the cards on one other player at the table gives you such a minute advantage that it's irrelevant in almost all practical cases.
Sure, if all of the players at the table except for you are sharing their cards, and are not required to conceal it (i.e. they can openly collude in their betting patterns against you), then they have a big advantage. But, that's, again, not very realistic.
The simpler the heuristic used to program the AI, the easier it will be for the opponents to figure out what the bot is doing. A big difference between a mediocre and a successful poker player is the ability to vary their play significantly enough to make it hard for anybody to put them on a hand, without impacting their play so much that they are playing badly.
There are many systems out there developed for the "opening hand", as you call it, and, yes, AI can be programmed to play the preflop game fairly well. After the flop, though, it's a whole different game. As much as you hear about odds in poker, it's not a matter of simple math to calculate them and play "proper odds". You only know your odds if you know exactly what every opponent has... and that's where simple heuristics fail miserably.
Finally, even if you knew everybody's cards, even then you would still need to know exactly how much they are going to bet (if at all) in the future rounds of betting in order to calculate the exact odds you're getting. Once again, that's something that's still very hard for bots to figure out.