1263: "Reassuring"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby ps.02 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:04 am UTC

speising wrote:Yes. but a lot of people don't enjoy thinking.

While many people probably don't enjoy thinking about the kinds of things I enjoy thinking about or the kinds of things you enjoy thinking about, your statement is condescendingly broad. Also, how can you even tell?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby addams » Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:55 am UTC

ps.02 wrote:
speising wrote:Yes. but a lot of people don't enjoy thinking.

While many people probably don't enjoy thinking about the kinds of things I enjoy thinking about or the kinds of things you enjoy thinking about, your statement is condescendingly broad. Also, how can you even tell?

It is easy. Ask them.

Sheeple? sometimes.
Watch Out! Some can think!

Location, Location, Location.
People seem to have become better thinkers in time.
People seem to be better thinkers in place.
Both are true.

The smartest Parisian is still not interested in Wittgenstein. I hope.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5437
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:45 am UTC

A lot of people vocally declare that they don't enjoy thinking. Seems a pretty good way of telling that a lot of people don't like thinking.

Also many people, even those who don't declare that they don't like thinking, evidently don't do it very well, and struggle against attempts to help them improve at it. So, apparently, they don't like thinking well; they may like, say, coming to conclusions, but they evidently disdain the work necessary to come to those conclusions correctly.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby addams » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:56 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:A lot of people vocally declare that they don't enjoy thinking. Seems a pretty good way of telling that a lot of people don't like thinking.

Also many people, even those who don't declare that they don't like thinking, evidently don't do it very well, and struggle against attempts to help them improve at it. So, apparently, they don't like thinking well; they may like, say, coming to conclusions, but they evidently disdain the work necessary to come to those conclusions correctly.

Yes. And; They win seats in congress.
Kind of funny.

Logic. From the Mind of Pailn.
"I think very well. I don't like to hurt myself with ideas. Ideas are stupid."
"I don't need to bother myself with ideas. Money is power; I have Money."
"Of course, I am perfect for the job. I have PR people; As God intended."
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:00 am UTC

Ah, but that sort of thinking, logically following premises to conclusions, is exactly the sort we're getting pretty good at having computers do for us.

Coming to conclusions without sound basis, acting on intuition and emotion, doing things for totally irrational reasons because similar muddled thinking more often than not saved our ancestors from hungry lions, and then explaining the whole thing to ourselves in a tremendous bout of after-the-fact confabulation: that is the sort of thinking humans excel at and enjoy doing. Coincidentally, I can't really imagine much of a desire for a computer that is equally good at it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Kit. » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:04 am UTC

ps.02 wrote:
speising wrote:Yes. but a lot of people don't enjoy thinking.

While many people probably don't enjoy thinking about the kinds of things I enjoy thinking about or the kinds of things you enjoy thinking about, your statement is condescendingly broad. Also, how can you even tell?

I believe you are falling into equivocation here. "Enjoying thinking about" is far from "enjoying thinking".

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby speising » Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:22 am UTC

i base my assumption on the popularity of things like reality tv. do we really want computers which enjoy that too? that would be human like intelligence, evidently.

User avatar
Darekun
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:57 am UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Darekun » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:31 am UTC

shapenaji wrote:The creation of MCMC codes led to a massive leap in computer strength, since it was the first time that anyone had managed to create a decent position evaluator.

Hm, that makes it sound like an evolutionary algorithm to find position evaluators is the next step…

Air Hadoken
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:25 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Air Hadoken » Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:27 am UTC

Actaeus wrote:Air Hadoken, what have you done?!

Computers will never synthesize a leader as well as humans


I did what I must.
Because I can.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby mathmannix » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:53 pm UTC

I must say, I'm loving this one.

Computers will never unbosom a parchment as well as humans.


Quite true.

EDIT: Of course, I thought that meant something different.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

herbys
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:46 pm UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby herbys » Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:53 am UTC

mward wrote:Back in the 1960's, when AI research was just beginning,
researchers predicted that within the next 20 years we would
have machines as intelligent as humans. I remember reading some
of these predictions in the 1970's and wondering...

Back in the 1980's, I read Douglas Hofstadter's brilliant
book "Godel, Escher, Bach" in which he predicted that within
the next 20 years we would have machines as intelligent as humans.
At that point, I made my own prediction: "In 20 years time people
will *still* be predicting that in 20 years time we would have
machines as intelligent as humans!"

I quote from http://www.accelerationwatch.com: "Both Ray Kurzweil (The Age
of Spiritual Machines) and Hans Moravec (Robot) have recently
proposed that perhaps even as early as 2020 to 2030 we will
have sufficient hardware complexity, as well as sufficient
insights from cognitive neuroscience (reverse engineering salient
neural structure of the mammalian brain), to create silicon
evolutionary spaces that will develop higher-level intelligence."
Bill Gates says ""Twenty years from now, predicts Ray Kurzweil,
$1,000 computers will match the power of the human brain."
(http://us.penguingroup.com/static/packa ... /index.htm).

It seems that my prediction has been fulfilled!
Some tentative conclusions:

(1) Twenty years is just about as far ahead as anyone can imagine.

(2) "Moore's Law", observed in 1965 that computer power doubles every
two years. This "law" has continued to hold for the subsequent
four decades, yet despite this huge technological gains over the last
60 years or more, human intelligence is still just as far away as it
ever was. It is as if despite building bigger and bigger ladders,
we are getting no closer to Andromeda galaxy!

(3) This suggests that in reality, human intelligence is
infinitely far removed from machine intelligence: in other words,
that there really is some qualitative difference between man
and machine, and not just a quantitative gap which can be bridged
with a few more transistors and a better programming language.
You simply cannot get to Andromeda by climbing a ladder :-)

(4) In this context, the arguments about a "Technological Singularity"
begin to look more like a "reductio ad absurdum" proof that
machine intelligence will never surpass human intelligence.
(Since the superintelligent machine will be able to design
a still more intelligent machine, and so on ad infinitum.
Quod est absurdum).


The predictions were accurate. The problem is that people have been becoming more intelligent. The average person of 20 years ago was not smarter than Siri.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:38 pm UTC

herbys wrote:The average person of 20 years ago was not smarter than Siri.
[citation needed]

I'd argue on the contrary that nearly all people at all times have been smarter than Siri.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Amanita
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:31 pm UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Amanita » Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:24 pm UTC

This sounds disturbingly like a threat: "Computers will never reintroduce an infection as well as humans"

...also, I had to type this in Notepad since my laptop started acting Very Strange when I tried to post it directly...
:shock:
Archbishop of Time for the moment
Blitzing since 21/9/13 - currently at 17,960 posts and counting

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby addams » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:15 am UTC

Amanita wrote:This sounds disturbingly like a threat: "Computers will never reintroduce an infection as well as humans"

...also, I had to type this in Notepad since my laptop started acting Very Strange when I tried to post it directly...
:shock:

To my knowledge no computer has reintroduced an infection.
Maybe....Computer Malware is an infection that can be introduced and reintroduced.
Can computers do it as well as humans? I don't know. Maybe.

Humans are good.
Good at introducing infections and reintroducing infections.
When is it Malware? When it is done purposefully?

Like biological warfare? Do we want to go there?
How old is biological warfare? It's old. yuck.

Will any computer sit around in a University and say, "Those Atari; Terrible. What were they doing? We can do it better."
ooops. They do that now. Anything Atari could do, can be done better by a toaster, today.

The plague was the first disease that I know of that was used as a biological agent of War.
You? What were you taught? What agent was the first in your book?

STD's were used before the 1400's. But; STD's were so hard to control.
They sure did a lot of damage. Still doing damage one thousand years later.

The plague was hard to control, too. It got out of hand, too.
Biological warfare is dodgy. We should not do that.
It has a lot of blow back.

(shrug) i don't know. what do you want to do?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:25 am UTC

addams wrote:Like biological warfare? Do we want to go there?
How old is biological warfare? It's old. yuck.


Wikipedia: "The earliest documented incident of the intention to use biological weapons is recorded in Hittite texts of 1500–1200 BC, in which victims of tularemia were driven into enemy lands, causing an epidemic."

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby addams » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
addams wrote:Like biological warfare? Do we want to go there?
How old is biological warfare? It's old. yuck.


Wikipedia: "The earliest documented incident of the intention to use biological weapons is recorded in Hittite texts of 1500–1200 BC, in which victims of tularemia were driven into enemy lands, causing an epidemic."

Humans! We are awful!
It seems we have been that way a long time. yuck.

We could be a little better. Some of us could.
There were people that cared for the sick.
Those people were better than many other people.

It was important that the people that could and would care for the sick and dying, lived.
There were never too many of them. Way back, traditions of cleanliness made the difference between life and death.

Way, way back. Not as far as you went. Still; Long time ago.
Washing washing washing. Wash my hands. Wash your hands. on and on.

Outer clothes. Formal behavior. Cleanliness.
Women have been killed for being clean.

Witch. They were called witch.
(shrug) Who can argue with the Queen?

yes. I had it explained to me. I still don't like it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

SnowFire
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby SnowFire » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:35 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:A lot of poker theory is based heavily on mathematics and statistics though, which computers are quite good at. The University of Alberta has held a few bot vs. human poker tournaments and the results have actually been very close (humans won the first tournament and the bots won the second). I think poker is probably a lot closer to being "solved", as much as it can be, than you might think.


Belated, but it should be noted that this was a limit poker tournament. Limit poker is a lot closer to math than no-limit Texas hold 'em; you can have a hand that is good and beaten by only a few potential hands and just max bet it every single time. You'll lose 20-40% of the time but will come out ahead over time. This strategy is much riskier in no-limit, where an overly predictable AI can result in a human player sitting back passively, then luring the AI into a showdown where the human player has a ridiculous hand. Humans still beat AIs in no-limit, to my knowledge.

(Disclaimer: LaserGuy's link removed due to spam filter, check out the Wikipedia article on Computer poker players for original link.)

Iggy2
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:08 pm UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Iggy2 » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:18 pm UTC

I felt like noting this as I almost never really do this.

This is sort of a note/addendum that needs to be said about this comic because to me it suggests that computers beat hunans at chess.

Well the truth is, computers aren't better than hunans at chess. We're pretty dumb, but computers are far dumber.

A few keynotes if you don't follow the chess scene and just know about the few now all too well known machines.

Chess computers get absolutely destroyed in correspondence chess. (Both man and machine are allowed 'infinite' time to make moves, may consult any data sort they want to, including the past history of players.)
IBM likely cheated or should at least have been investigated following the match with Kasparov. Very sketchy things happened--such as a non-neutral official going into a private room to get the moves from the computer. They also shoved the matches into a much smaller window than you normally would. Still despite all this, the end result was basically tie. Pretty much all the major man-machine matches up until very recently were effectively ties (at best someone wins by 1 pt). At the top level that really isn't that much. The one major exception is a chess player that got creamed about 10 or so years ago against Hydra...he basically did it to cash the guaranteed paycheque and didn't study or prepare for the match.

Now recently, yeah computers are more powerful--the big problem is the limiting factor of really good algorithms to compete against a hunan. Look at all the PC games out there...all of them...there are very very few AIs that exist for games that cannot win without cheating. In the end, the machine is only as good as the man who made it.

Still--I think what AI can do is really cool, but I get very unhappy (and hence why I wrote this on the offchance some of you are misinformed) when companies (in particular IBM) take man v machine matches (chess, jeopardy, etc.) and use it as a marketing tool--cheat or do whatever it is necessary to favor the computer...win and then say 'the job is done.'

Good day.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:23 am UTC

Iggy2 wrote:This is sort of a note/addendum that needs to be said about this comic because to me it suggests that computers beat hunans at chess.

Well the truth is, computers aren't better than hunans at chess. We're pretty dumb, but computers are far dumber.

A few keynotes if you don't follow the chess scene and just know about the few now all too well known machines.

Chess computers get absolutely destroyed in correspondence chess. (Both man and machine are allowed 'infinite' time to make moves, may consult any data sort they want to, including the past history of players.)
IBM likely cheated or should at least have been investigated following the match with Kasparov.
Okay, but even if that's true, computers have improved far more in the intervening 16 years than humans have.

In the end, the machine is only as good as the man who made it.
In some very vague and imprecise way, sure. But as soon as you bother specifying what you mean by "good", you can no longer say that in a lot of cases. For example, it is absolutely possible to program a computer that could go on to consistently beat its programmer at any of a wide class of games, without any cheating or access to external information. Sure, there are other things its programmer can still probably do far better than the computer, such as walk and parse natural human speech, but it's nonetheless possible to program a computer to be better than the programmer at a rather wide variety of tasks.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Klear » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:23 am UTC

Iggy2 wrote:Chess computers get absolutely destroyed in correspondence chess. (Both man and machine are allowed 'infinite' time to make moves, may consult any data sort they want to, including the past history of players.)


And this includes consulting with chess programs? :wink:

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby addams » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:59 pm UTC

Do the machines like to play with us?
Game. The word means fun. Right?

Do the machines have inside jokes?
Do they go (hee hee hee.) behind our backs?

Do they become a part of our pack?
Will my daddy's Hummer beat up your daddy's Jag?

Just, asking. What will a machine never do as well as a human being?
If it is inside the human imagination; Is it inside the machine imagination?

Do machines have absence seizures? Some do.
Do machines, day dream? I don't know. Maybe.

What does your car do when you are not around?
Check and re-check its systems?

And; Daydream about you coming back?
Does your car love to see you coming? Or; Does it cringe?

ech. Will a machine ever be as unpredictable as living things?
Living things are pretty predictable, within parameters.

Pigs don't usually fly.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby orthogon » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:11 pm UTC

^ One of my all time favourite addams posts.

Has anyone suggested yet that the machines might just be letting us win?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Klear » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:23 pm UTC

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby orthogon » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:30 pm UTC

Klear wrote:Do androids dream of electric sheep?

I wondered what your number 1000 was going to be. Congratulations: you're only 24 posts away from a big round number milestone!
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Klear » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:38 pm UTC

Wow... really #1000! I'm glad it was PKD reference and not one of my drunk posts.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby orthogon » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:48 pm UTC

Klear wrote:Wow... really #1000! I'm glad it was PKD reference and not one of my drunk posts.

Yes, I thought you'd done it on purpose. Meanwhile, gmalivuk is on the brink, 2 posts away from a cool 20000. Make it a good one, your honour!
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Darekun
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:57 am UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Darekun » Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:29 am UTC

Iggy2 wrote:Look at all the PC games out there...all of them...there are very very few AIs that exist for games that cannot win without cheating.

This isn't meaningful anymore; it's normal nowdays in AAA games for the AI to be developed to the point of utterly destroying most players, then toned back until it's fun again. And the cheating isn't added until that balance pass, unless you count "being a machine" kind of things(accurately tracks multiple 30sec item respawns while under fire, sees distances as numbers instead of eyeballed, etc).

Air Hadoken
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:25 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Air Hadoken » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:45 am UTC

On the subject of Twitter bots, I also hacked up a new, imperfect, but much more interesting one this week.

http://twitter.com/snowcloneminute

Instead of using the same template every time, it chooses randomly from a selection of 300+ adapted from snowclones.org

Even if you don't recognize the term "snowclone" you'll recognize what it means as soon as you see it. :)

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby moody7277 » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:11 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:^ One of my all time favourite addams posts.

Has anyone suggested yet that the machines might just be letting us win?


That's actually a scarier alternative because it suggests a more thoughtful intelligence than raw computing power.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.


BoomFrog wrote:I still have no idea what town moody really looks like.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby addams » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:13 am UTC

moody7277 wrote:
orthogon wrote:^ One of my all time favourite addams posts.

Has anyone suggested yet that the machines might just be letting us win?


That's actually a scarier alternative because it suggests a more thoughtful intelligence than raw computing power.

Letting us win is easy.
Do they enjoy letting us win?

Pleasure. So nice the machine enjoys its job.
What if we displease it?

by Klear
Do androids dream of electric sheep?

A happy little machine dreams of electric sheep or spider goats.
An unhappy little machine plots the spread of Electrogonorrhea, the noisy killer.

The silly things I learn at xicd. yep. Learned it here, I repeat it here. (shrug)
That is the way culture is formed. Lies! Its all Lies!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:25 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
In the end, the machine is only as good as the man who made it.
In some very vague and imprecise way, sure. But as soon as you bother specifying what you mean by "good", you can no longer say that in a lot of cases. For example, it is absolutely possible to program a computer that could go on to consistently beat its programmer at any of a wide class of games, without any cheating or access to external information. Sure, there are other things its programmer can still probably do far better than the computer, such as walk and parse natural human speech, but it's nonetheless possible to program a computer to be better than the programmer at a rather wide variety of tasks.

This would probably depend on the allowed tools. If the human is allowed to create another machine to determine the moves for him they would probably be on par...
Darekun wrote:
Iggy2 wrote:Look at all the PC games out there...all of them...there are very very few AIs that exist for games that cannot win without cheating.

This isn't meaningful anymore; it's normal nowdays in AAA games for the AI to be developed to the point of utterly destroying most players, then toned back until it's fun again. And the cheating isn't added until that balance pass, unless you count "being a machine" kind of things(accurately tracks multiple 30sec item respawns while under fire, sees distances as numbers instead of eyeballed, etc).

It depends on whether the AI actually gets more information. Does the AI get more detailed distance information than the parsed information displayed to the player? Does the AI get information about a larger area than is displayed to the player (i.e. does the AI get the raw data on the entire map in strategy games whereas the player only gets information on a tiny portion of that map at any one time?)? It wouldn't be cheating if the AI gets the same information through it's interface with the game as the player gets through their interface with the game. Even though the machine may still have an edge due to its ability to spread its attention, that edge would count as skill. Although it could also be argued that computers would need a separate competition category from humans, like male and female humans in physical sports.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:54 pm UTC

Yeah, the hard part for video-game AI for the past 10-15 years or so, and possibly longer, hasn't so much been being able to outplay humans, but being able to play like humans - for a first-person shooter, it's not hard to produce an AI that just fires with perfect aim the moment the player crosses its field of vision, and is capable of facing in any direction while navigating the level, so constantly spins as it moves except when engaging... The result is something almost unbeatable (anything with a predictable pattern can be exploited in principle, if not in practice, so a hunter-kill bot could be designed to take out this bot and a human player may also be able to take advantage of its predictability).

Obviously, turn-based games reduce the computer's twitch advantage, and games with sufficient complexity to defy brute-force analysis tend to favour expert human pattern recognition over computational brute force - which is why turn-based strategy games are probably the hardest for an AI to do well at.

Still, the problem programmers have been more focused on has been giving the AI "personality" rather than embracing mechanical perfection - making them win (or lose) more like good (or bad) human players rather than like bots with a twerked parameter...

User avatar
Darekun
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:57 am UTC

Re: 1263: "Reassuring"

Postby Darekun » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:40 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:It depends on whether the AI actually gets more information.

I was specifically talking about cases where they don't have an information advantage; in great part, this is because players will notice that kind of information advantage, and AAA can afford to do without it.

PinkShinyRose wrote:Does the AI get more detailed distance information than the parsed information displayed to the player?

Depends, and usually doesn't matter; if the player gets distances listed to the nearest tenth of a meter for reasons of pleasing digit spin(fairly common), the AI can get its distance measurements in int meters(usually for speed reasons) and still be way ahead of a human player. Try watching over the shoulder of a human player in, say, an FPS; the error introduced by having the weapon guided by a human hand is far greater than the rounding error on the distance display, to the point that a distance display isn't that helpful to humans. Humans can get better data from the per-pixel view than from a distance display, it's just the AIs that get better yet from the distance display.

Alternately, try playing the original STALKER with a mod that turns on the ability for the AI to use grenades. Even if they can only place them to the nearest meter, that's still a surgical strike by a god of death compared to human players using grenades(which is why they just turned it off entirely).

PinkShinyRose wrote:Does the AI get information about a larger area than is displayed to the player (i.e. does the AI get the raw data on the entire map in strategy games whereas the player only gets information on a tiny portion of that map at any one time?)?

Usually the opposite, the AI is serial and therefore more vulnerable to getting bogged down in pointless detail. In an RTS the AI often has a "tactical" section that only considers a small part of the map, and a quite separate strategic part which is only limited by the "fog of war" but ignores details. Turn-based strategy games eliminate most of the computer advantages, so they tend to be more like Chess… but even there, ignoring the fog of war is long obsolete in the AAA world. Heck, simply the ability to see expected values instead of typical values for a battle's outcome puts the AI ahead in a long war.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hetas, MistyCat and 101 guests