Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI

AI Can Beat Humans Only One Game At a Time (axios.com) 60

An anonymous reader shares a report: Despite all of the potential for artificial intelligence to solve our most vexing problems, it's still in a primitive state, according to a new report by Stanford University. But a separate paper, this one by Alphabet's DeepMind, suggests again that it has made some of its best progress in the narrow realm of games. Why it matters: Those advances are important, but life isn't a game. AI progress outside of these areas has been harder to define and track. "The most important thing for AI is to go from exceptional promise to use in actual everyday life," Martial Hebert, director of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, tells Axios.

AI Can Beat Humans Only One Game At a Time

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Not nearly enough on sexbot technology.
    • Not nearly enough on sexbot technology.

      Yes! All the A.I. needed for that is just a few stock phrases like "Ooooh, you're so good" and "I don't know why the other girls don't get some of this!"

  • let's play Global Thermonuclear War!

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Cool. I still have a soda poptop to hack the payphone.
  • ... desperately hoping for A.I. that will do it for them so they never have to. This won't end well.

  • Certain genres, at least, are more like "real life" than e.g. image classification and other tasks commonly approached using machine learning. A program that can play Starcraft, or GTA, or Grand Turismo, or Counterstrike using the same inputs and outputs as a human player is a lot closer to programs for real-world tasks like driving a car, than a program that identifies handwritten characters or plays Go.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Yes indeed it is. You can't take an AI, of any form, raise it from a blob of generic neural nets, teach it english, then teach it to manipulate it's own robot arm, show it the chess rules wikipedia page, and have it play a game. Even if such an AI existed it might very well be a shitty chess player.

    Current chess AI are very much tailored to playing chess, where the inputs and outputs are simple.

    Someone will probably accuse me of moving the goalposts, demanding an ever better standard for what constitutes "r

    • I think we can safely say 'being able to learn several things and understand what it required of it without reprogramming' would be a reasonable definition on the conservative side.
    • teach it english, then teach it to manipulate it's own robot arm

      Yes, I can see that being difficult.

  • I disagree (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @05:25PM (#55691257)

    >life isn't a game

    It can certainly be treated as one; the goal is to have the longest uninterrupted chemical reaction (I'm at around 4 billion years, personally). You can narrow that down to a 'minigame' where the goal is for an organism to successfully replicate (I'm losing there, since I've only managed replacement at 2.0 children and generally you want some redundancy just to be sure). And that game can also be divided into a number of mini-minigames.

    A game is a contest with rules, goals, and a scoring system. In chess it's to checkmate your opponent and avoid being checkmated using a variety of pieces that move in certain ways on a limited checkered surface. In life it's a bit more complicated, but that doesn't mean treating it like a game is a flawed strategy.

    • This is biological determinism and has been heavily discredited by feminism.
      • I couldn''t tell if you're joking and I just don't find it funny or if you're serious and just politically bent.

        A quick look through your posting history is not enlightening, as you careen wildly back and forth between rational posts and ones where I can almost see you frothing at the mouth as you're attacking the 'leftists' and the 'leftist media'.

    • >life isn't a game

      It can certainly be treated as one;

      No way. If life can be treated as one, then where's my wall hacks and OP cheat codes? And don't tell me it's still loading or it bugged out with the stupid memory leaks.

      /joke

    • It can certainly be treated as one; the goal is to have the longest uninterrupted chemical reaction (I'm at around 4 billion years, personally).

      You can treat life as a game with that goal, but life doesn't have goals, just physics. Organisms have goals, but how do you measure a win? Personally, I do it through happiness, not offspring. I don't feel it's worth it to win at the expense of others, and unless you are living a hippie lifestyle predicated upon regenerative agriculture, your having children harms other people.

  • vs. Stockfish?

    Why do I think Stockfish was running on a 4 CPU box and AlphaZero running on something a few orders of magnitude greater?
  • except as a platonic ideal in scifi-land. In real life, it doesn't for some very fundamental reasons. But most journalists are writers, so they see 'AI' and think Asimov.
  • There is no AI
    Intelligence is insight. The ability to apply one experience or idea to a different and unrelated concept. "the eureka" moment, the creative spark, curiosity... .
    Today's computers do only task programming. A system is programmed to perform a specific task with predetermined parameters. I submit that using today's technology, AI is not even possible. Look at the hardware layer. A "massively parallel" system has what, a few dozen cores limited by bus of connectivity.
    A brain, even an
  • A smart machine will first consider which is more worth its while: to perform the given task or, instead, to figure some way out of it.
    Stanislaw Lem, The Futurological Congress (1971).

Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it.

Working...