Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Games

Researchers Prove Humans Are Still Better Than AI at 'Angry Birds' (i-programmer.info) 30

Posted by EditorDavid from the green-pigs dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Prove Humans Are Still Better Than AI at 'Angry Birds' More

Researchers Prove Humans Are Still Better Than AI at 'Angry Birds'

Comments Filter:

  • Correction: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dallas May ( 4891515 ) on Sunday October 13, 2019 @06:05PM (#59304158)

    Corrected headline: "Researchers Prove Humans Are Still Better at 'Angry Birds' Than said Researcher is capable of programming AI"

    • Yeah, one gets the feeling that if the Google AI team tried it, they wouldn't run into the same difficulty (although they also have dramatically more CPU power at their disposal).

    • Re:Correction: (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Sunday October 13, 2019 @11:39PM (#59304596) Journal
      Oh bullshit.
      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.
      • It is not a âsoftwareâ(TM), it is a neural network that uses reinforcement learning ideas. It is a system that learns how to play a game from images. Authors did not pre-program their system to play a game as opposite to the software.
        • No, it's still just software no matter how you try to spin it. I don't care if it 'learns' it's still not alive, it's not sentient, and it's not very good at all. Stop with the magical thinking.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • You donâ(TM)t program AI, you design the system that solves your task. In this paper authors were evaluating performance of a particular learning method and showed itâ(TM)s weaknesses. I just hope it would generate more research in that area that would solve these problems.

    • 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.

      • ..which conjures mental imagery of big stupid birds hurling themselves at keyboards and utterly failing to generate something that could even compile
        Maybe they should hire the Chantix turkeys instead, they seem pretty chill and intelligent, and those big, big eyes are a real plus.

  • I don't think it means what they think it means (Score:4, Insightful)

    by igny ( 716218 ) on Sunday October 13, 2019 @06:18PM (#59304194) Homepage Journal
    They used term 'prove'. Does it still have the same meaning nowadays as when I went to college?

  • "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

  • Thanks (Score:3)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Sunday October 13, 2019 @06:57PM (#59304236)
    I'll be sleeping better tonight knowing this.
  • Given that Angry Birds is essentially a suicide bombing game cute enough for general sale; these skills will probably come in handy during the robot wars.

  • ... it halts with the error message, "I just don't feel like it right now."

  • ... 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Thank God (Score:4, Funny)

    by mark_reh ( 2015546 ) on Monday October 14, 2019 @09:56AM (#59305576) Journal

    AI may kill the rest of our jobs, but at least the professional Angry Birds players will still be able to earn a living...

  • Who has two thumbs and beats an AI at angry birds?
    *THIS GUY*

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close