Researchers Prove Humans Are Still Better Than AI at 'Angry Birds' (i-programmer.info) 30
An anonymous reader quotes the I-Programmer site:
Humans! Rest easy, we still beat the evil AI at the all-important Angry Birds game. Recent research by Ekaterina Nikonova and Jakub Gemrot of Charles University (Czech Republic) indicates why this is so....
"Firstly, this game has a large number of possibilities of actions and nearly infinite amount of possible levels, which makes it difficult to use simple state space search algorithms for this task. Secondly, the game requires a planning of sequences of actions, which are related to each other... For example, a poorly chosen first action can make a level unsolvable by blocking a pig with a pile of objects. Therefore, to successfully solve the task, a game agent should be able to predict or simulate the outcome of it is own actions a few steps ahead."
The researchers also report that the game requires AI to distinguish "between multiple birds, their abilities and optimum tapping times..."
"Despite the fact we have come close to a human-level performance on selected 21 levels, we still lost to 3 out of 4 humans in obtaining a maximum possible total score."
"Firstly, this game has a large number of possibilities of actions and nearly infinite amount of possible levels, which makes it difficult to use simple state space search algorithms for this task. Secondly, the game requires a planning of sequences of actions, which are related to each other... For example, a poorly chosen first action can make a level unsolvable by blocking a pig with a pile of objects. Therefore, to successfully solve the task, a game agent should be able to predict or simulate the outcome of it is own actions a few steps ahead."
The researchers also report that the game requires AI to distinguish "between multiple birds, their abilities and optimum tapping times..."
"Despite the fact we have come close to a human-level performance on selected 21 levels, we still lost to 3 out of 4 humans in obtaining a maximum possible total score."
Correction: (Score:5, Insightful)
Corrected headline: "Researchers Prove Humans Are Still Better at 'Angry Birds' Than said Researcher is capable of programming AI"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(although they also have dramatically more CPU power at their disposal).
But still far less computing power than a human brain.
Re: (Score:2)
And this puts to rest the click-bait press release that Google has a quantum computer.
Re:Correction: (Score:4, Interesting)
So-called 'AI' is over-hyped crap. It's not sentient, it has no cognitive ability; it cannot 'THINK', not at all. An amoeba is smarter than the best so-called 'AI' of the current crop of 'deep learning algorithms' and so-called 'neural networks' marketing people keep trotting out to us and the media. It's crap.
I was thinking about this again today. Do you realize we've had images of 'self-aware', 'sentient' automatons put before our eyes in fictional stories for at least 100 years now? It's ingrained into our brains practically from birth that there is such a concept as 'sentient machines'. First as magical creations, then as man-made machinery, going back at least as far as the ancient silent-film versions of the Flash Gordon serials, then up to Isaac Asimov and his I, Robot series of short stories, then Knight Rider's K.I.T.T., Cherry 2000, James Camerons' Terminator movies, Short Circuit's Number 5, and then all the TV shows and more modern movies like the I, Robot movie with Will Smith in it; people actually think there's something alive in that box, that it somehow thinks but doesn't speak for some reason (although I'm somewhat convinced some people at least think it would talk if they'd let it) and they probably think they so-called 'self driving car' is going to have pleasant conversations with them on the way to their work everyday, in an English accent no doubt, about current events, the weather, and the passengers' plans for their next gods-be-damned vacation. None of that is true! It's SOFTWARE, that's all, and not even very good software, it's actually rather untrustworthy, shitty software, that even the coders who wrote it can't tell you why it does what it does!
People need to get off this kick. So-called 'AI' is more marketing bullshit and hype than it is anything else. It's not going to make people 'obsolete', it's not going to 'take all our jobs', or whatever sensationalistic bullshit internet pundits and trolls keep screaming at us. It's just shitty software.
Re: Correction: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Live Human v. Pre-Programmed Human!
It's The Matchup Of The Century!
I'll never understand why people think AI has independent agency. It's because deep-down we WANT it to be true, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
The system is duelling deep learning networks. They were just evaluating how a particular learning system performs. The researchers didn’t 'program' the AI directly. All they showed is that this particular method with this amount of training performed at a certain level. It's interesting that this problem isn't completely trivial, so I don't think we should be giving them so much crap for exploring it.
Re: Correction: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I misread the headline as "Humans still better than Angry birds at AI" which conjures mental imagery of big stupid birds hurling themselves at keyboards and utterly failing to generate something that could even compile.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should hire the Chantix turkeys instead, they seem pretty chill and intelligent, and those big, big eyes are a real plus.
Re: (Score:2)
You kind of come across like a whiny bitch, Andy Rooney is gone, there is no need for a replacement.
For 99.999% of people this is no issue, if it is an issue for you, then it is time to abandon your old identity entirely, form a anonymous trust and use it to run a corporation, which will now act as your interface to the world
Bitching on /. is not very likely to be more effective
I don't think it means what they think it means (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They don’t use the word 'prove', the headline does. The abstract is predictably dull and neutral.
Points at a rock... (Score:1)
"See! Humans are better than this AI at it, too!"
What a stupid thing. Obviously, humans are better than a sucky AI at anything.
If a task is already something humans are capable of doing, writing software that isn't as good as the humans isn't any sort of accomplishment by the humans. It just means the software wasn't good enough to be useful. It doesn't tell you anything about what better software could do.
Lame. Very lame. They should have played up beating one out of four humans, instead. At least that sho
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the one out of four humans sucked at Angry Birds.
Thanks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Having solved all of the world's more pressing problems...."
Should come in handy... (Score:2)
AI will never be a thing until ... (Score:2)
... it halts with the error message, "I just don't feel like it right now."
In a recent article in a respected journal ... (Score:2)
... researchers report that the AI machine playing Angry Birds refused to engage because Google was recording its every move in order to sell the data to advertisers, LEO, and foreign and domestic spy organizations.
Maybe the AI was triggered (Score:2)
As in the violent/suicidal actions that are the key to the game probably made the AI run off and hide in a safe space.
Coming soon (Score:2)
All hope was lost when Skynet finally implanted itself in our livestock. And then with the help of the bruised, battered remaining human survivors ... they got angry.
Porcinator: Dark Flock
Re: (Score:2)
Thank God (Score:4, Funny)
AI may kill the rest of our jobs, but at least the professional Angry Birds players will still be able to earn a living...
I should hope so! (Score:1)
*THIS GUY*