{"id":193017,"date":"2017-05-14T17:47:53","date_gmt":"2017-05-14T21:47:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/ai-opponents-can-beat-humans-at-chess-go-and-even-poker-futurism\/"},"modified":"2017-05-14T17:47:53","modified_gmt":"2017-05-14T21:47:53","slug":"ai-opponents-can-beat-humans-at-chess-go-and-even-poker-futurism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/ai\/ai-opponents-can-beat-humans-at-chess-go-and-even-poker-futurism\/","title":{"rendered":"AI Opponents Can Beat Humans at Chess, Go, and Even Poker &#8211; Futurism"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>In BriefArtificial intelligence continually becomes moresophisticated, and playing games with people is something it'squite skilled at. Researcher Arend Hintze takes a look at theevolution of AI and games  and what's coming next.  <\/p>\n<p>    Way back in the 1980s, a schoolteacher challenged me to write a    computer program that played tic-tac-toe. I failed miserably.    But just a couple of weeks ago, I explained to one of my    computer science graduate students how to solve tic-tac-toe    using the so-called Minimax algorithm,    and it took us about an hour to write a program to do it.    Certainly my coding skills have improved over the years, but    computer science has come a long way too.  <\/p>\n<p>    What seemed impossible just a couple of decades ago is    startlingly easy today. In 1997, people were stunned when a    chess-playing IBM computer named     Deep Blue beat international grandmaster Garry Kasparov in    a six-game match. In 2015, Google revealed that its DeepMind    system had mastered several     1980s-era video games, including teaching itself a crucial    winning strategy in Breakout (seen below). In 2016,    Googles AlphaGo system beat a top-ranked Go player in a        five-game tournament.  <\/p>\n<p>    The quest for technological systems that can beat humans at    games continues. In late May, AlphaGo will take on     Ke Jie, the best player in the world, among other opponents    at the Future of Go Summit in Wuzhen, China. With increasing    computing power, and improved engineering, computers can beat    humans even at games we thought relied on human intuition, wit,    deception or bluffing like     poker. I recently saw a video in which volleyball players    practice their serves and spikes against robot-controlled    rubber arms trying to block the shots. One lesson is clear:    when machines play to win, human effort is futile.  <\/p>\n<p>    This can be great: we want a perfect AI to drive our cars, and    a tireless system looking for signs of cancer in X-rays. But    when it comes to play, we dont want to lose. Fortunately, AI    can make games more fun, and perhaps even endlessly enjoyable.  <\/p>\n<p>    Todays game designers  who write releases that     earn more than a blockbuster movie  see a problem:    creating an unbeatable artificial intelligence system is    pointless. Nobody wants to play a game they have no chance of    winning.  <\/p>\n<p>    But people do want to play     games that are immersive, complex, and surprising. Even    todays best games become stale after a person plays for a    while. The ideal game will engage players by adapting and    reacting in ways that keep the game interesting, maybe forever.  <\/p>\n<p>    So when were designing artificial intelligence systems, we    should look not to the triumphant Deep Blues and AlphaGos of    the world, but rather to the overwhelming success of massively    multiplayer online games like World of    Warcraft. These sorts of games are graphically    well-designed, but their key attraction is interaction.  <\/p>\n<p>    It seems as if most people are not drawn to extremely difficult    logical puzzles like chess and Go, but rather to meaningful    connections and communities. The real challenge with these    massively multiplayer online games is not whether they can be    beaten by intelligence (human or artificial), but rather how to    keep the experience of playing them fresh and new every time.  <\/p>\n<p>    At present, game environments allow people lots of possible    interactions with other players. The roles in a dungeon    raiding    party are well-defined: fighters take the damage, healers    help them recover from their injuries, and the fragile wizards    cast spells from afar. Or think of Portal 2, a    game with a multiplayer aspect focused entirely on    collaborating robots puzzling their way through a maze of    cognitive tests.  <\/p>\n<p>    Exploring these worlds together allows you to form common    memories with your friends. But any changes to these    environments or the underlying plots have to be made by human    designers and developers.  <\/p>\n<p>    In the real world, changes happen naturally, without    supervision, design or manual intervention. Players learn, and    living things adapt. Some organisms even co-evolve, reacting to    each others developments. (A similar phenomenon happens in a        weapons technology arms race.)  <\/p>\n<p>    Computer games today lack that level of sophistication. And for    that reason, I dont believe developing an artificial    intelligence that can play modern games will meaningfully    advance AI research.  <\/p>\n<p>    A game worth playing is a game that is unpredictable because it    adapts, a game that is ever novel because novelty is created by    playing the game. Future games need to evolve. Their characters    shouldnt just react; they need to explore and learn to exploit    weaknesses or cooperate and collaborate.     Darwinian evolution and learning, we understand, are the    drivers of all novelty on Earth. It could be what     drives change in virtual environments as well.  <\/p>\n<p>    Evolution figured out how to create     natural intelligence. Shouldnt we, instead of trying to    code our way to AI, just evolve AI instead? Several labs     including my own and    that of my colleague    Christoph Adami  are working on what is called neuro-evolution.  <\/p>\n<p>    In a computer, we simulate complex environments, like a road    network or a biological ecosystem. We create virtual creatures    and challenge them to evolve over hundreds of thousands of    simulated generations. Evolution itself then develops the best    drivers, or the best organisms at adapting to the conditions     those are the ones that survive.  <\/p>\n<p>    Todays AlphaGo is beginning this process, learning by    continuously     playing games against itself, and by analyzing records of    games played by top Go champions. But it does not learn while    playing in the same way we do, experiencing unsupervised    experimentation. And it doesnt adapt to a particular opponent:    for these computer players, the best move is the best move,    regardless of an opponents style.  <\/p>\n<p>    Programs that learn from experience are the next step in AI.    They would make computer games much more interesting, and    enable robots to not only function better in the real world,    but to adapt to it on the fly.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Go here to read the rest:<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/futurism.com\/ai-opponents-beat-humans-chess-go-poker\/\" title=\"AI Opponents Can Beat Humans at Chess, Go, and Even Poker - Futurism\">AI Opponents Can Beat Humans at Chess, Go, and Even Poker - Futurism<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> In BriefArtificial intelligence continually becomes moresophisticated, and playing games with people is something it'squite skilled at.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/ai\/ai-opponents-can-beat-humans-at-chess-go-and-even-poker-futurism\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187743],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ai"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193017"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}