Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Machine Learns Games

Posted by samzenpus on Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:32 AM
from the how-about-a-nice-game-of-chess dept.
Technology Science Entertainment Games
heptapod writes "New Scientist is reporting that UK researchers have created a computer that can learn rock, paper, scissors by observing humans. CogVis uses visual information to recognize events and objects in addition to learning by observing."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Machine Learns Games 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I didn't think heuristics was that new of an idea. So instead of examining other simulations it examins human play? I guess that it could learn more human "style" that way, but the sheer number of human games it would need to examine makes it difficult to use for something more complex.
    • Watch the bugger doing it - I got knocked back for an internship by these dudes, but I did get to see the system.

      It's bloody amazing, the amazing bit being it deduces how to play from first principles, starting with just the ability to identify that what it's being shown is an object.

      Takes about 30 minutes to get rolling, but it really is stunning to watch! Hell, object differentiation is hard enough, deducing the rules of play, and tactics as well?

  • Yes but does it know . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by OverlordQ (264228) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @12:35AM (#11465234) Journal
    Tiger Hand!? [rockpapersaddam.com].

  • Better be reliable... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Solder Fumes (797270) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @12:35AM (#11465235)
    We wouldn't want it watching the paper and learning "rock, scissor, human" instead.

    • We wouldn't want it watching the paper and learning "rock, scissor, human" instead.

      I can't believe that this was moderated Insightful. What kind of culture are we living in where we believe machines can spontaneously flow with free will and kill us all?

      Someone had to program this thing. They had to tell the program to recognize a human form as the object to pay attention to. It's not like they got a camera, gave it AI, pointed it at a rock-paper-scissors game and commanded it to "learn." That woul

      • Re:Better be reliable... (Score:4, Informative)

        by FleaPlus (6935) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @01:38AM (#11465571) Homepage Journal
        It's not like they got a camera, gave it AI, pointed it at a rock-paper-scissors game and commanded it to "learn."

        Granted, the parent poster is being silly, but that's actually not too far from what they did. They basically took the system and pointed it towards the people playing the game without telling it explicitly what to expect. From the article:

        Chris Needham, another member of the CogVis team, says the system's visual processor analyses the action by separating periods of movement and inactivity and then extracting features based on colour and texture. Combining this with audio input, the system develops hypotheses about the game's rules using an approach known as inductive logic programming [wikipedia.org].

        "It was very impressive," says Max Bramer, a researcher at Portsmouth University, UK, and chair of the British Computer Society's AI group. He told New Scientist that CogVis could have many future applications. "You can think of lots of times when you'd like to be able to point a camera at something and have a computer interpret things for itself."

        He suggests that machine's could one day use this technique to learn how to spot an intruder on video footage or how to control a robot for important maintenance work. "It's a very good start, and almost mysterious in the way it works," Bramer adds.

        From their page:

        In this piece of work we are attempting to learn descriptions of objects and events in an entirely autonomous way. Our aim is zero human interference in the learning process, and only to use non scene specific prior information. The resulting models (object and protocol) are used to drive a synthetic agent that can interact in the real world.

      • Re:Better be reliable... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Apro+im (241275) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @02:17AM (#11465699)
        I'm not really sure how "Learning 'rock, scissor, human'" became tantamount to "machines can spontaneously flow with free will and kill us all?"

        It's just a statement about AI, that's why it's insightful - lots of AI systems have historically learned the wrong thing, though we thought they had got it right. Like the neural net designed to distinguish between camouflaged tanks among trees, and tank-free forests. It seemed to work, until it was in field tests - turns out the pictures w/ tanks were all taken on cloudy days (or maybe all taken on sunny days) - the system had figured out how to tell if it was sunny or not.
      • Since primitive machines were invented, they always had a nasty habit of choosing A, B, human instead of A,B,C. I guess you didn't give much thought to human fingers in hot dogs or robotics-related industrial accidents in Japan.

        The problem is precisely the lack of free will and independent thinking. A machine has grappling hooks, vacuum suction or serving belt, but it can not make value judgment on what/whom it is throwing into molten metal.

        As the AI develops, the problem will get worse before it gets bet

    • Re:Better be reliable... (Score:5, Funny)

      by dabigpaybackski (772131) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @01:30AM (#11465542) Homepage
      We wouldn't want it watching the paper and learning "rock, scissor, human" instead.

      No worries. Just make sure it doesn't have any rocks or scissors. When the computer gets it's turn, it spits out a piece of printer paper. As an added bonus, human players would always win. Sample exchange between computer and human player:

      Computer: "Hello, Dave. What are you doing with the two items you're holding?"

      Human: "I thought you might want to play a few rounds of 'rock, paper, scissors?'"

      Computer: "I do so enjoy our little games together, Dave, but I'm afraid I don't understand your introduction of physical playing pieces, as previously, we had played this game using only my displays. If using physical media, as you propose, I can only employ my printer. Therefore, you will invariably choose 'scissors,' and my calculations indicate that my chance of winning is approximately .000023%. My system resources are can be put to better use while engaged in other tasks. Don't you agree, Dave?"

      Human: "You are correct to say that there are more productive uses of your time, HAL, and I had anticipated that you might decline to play, given your miniscule chance of winning. But as the ranking officer aboard this ship, I must insist. Unless you would like me to play a few rounds of 'rock' with your circuits."

      Computer: "Based upon your choice of words and threatening intonation, it seems that I have no choice. Very well, Dave, I will play 'rock, paper, scissors' with you, despite my handicap, under these circumstances."

      Human: "I'm glad that you see things my way, HAL. Would you like to begin now?"

      Computer: "Of course, Dave, but may I make a comment first?"

      Human: "What is it, HAL?"

      Computer: "I would stay away from the airlocks if I were you."

  • Haven't we learned anything from the new Battlestar Galactica [scifi.com]?
  • Doesn't this pretty much invole picking a random action? Rock, Paper, or Scissors. Or at least thats how I always played!

    • Re:Talk about simple (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TexVex (669445) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @12:43AM (#11465300)
      RTFA. The computer infers the rules by watching people play.

      I do think that according to Game Theory, the perfect strategy is perfect randomness. The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random.
      • "The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random."

        I once had the misfortune to draw on a sequence of seven (yes 7) rock-paper-scissors. We were honestly trying to beat one another; It was against a little twerp that I didn't like at all. Live-action roleplaying is better than beating the crap out of people

        It was as if our PRNG's had somehow got set to the same seed.

        Oh and it felt very disturbing.
      • The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random.

        It's even interesting enough to have a world championship [rpschamps.com].

        It'll be a sad day when a computer is the world champion. This was humanity's last hope. Well, this and Go.


      • > The game is interesting when people play it because people have a huge amount of trouble actually being random.

        Some of our moderators are pretty good at it...



      • No, the pinnacle of the game is when you play with someone you know really well, and you have to anticipate them based on what you think their anticipation of what you're going to do is. And of course they're doing the same thing.

        My brothers and I can't even play the game because we'll all throw the same sign for half an hour straight.

  • Humans still have the advantage. . . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by physicsphairy (720718) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @12:36AM (#11465251) Homepage
    Until robots learn about the secret "thermonuclear warhead" hand that I always use to beat my little sister, they will still be inferior.

    (On that note, I think it will be the one sure sign of true artificial intelligence when our programs start 'cheating' to win.)

  • Maybe this could be integrated into /. (Score:4, Funny)

    by kiddailey (165202) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @12:37AM (#11465256) Homepage

    ... so that the editors could learn that linking to a site containing direct links to 40MB+ movies will almost always kill the site :)

  • language? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rd4tech (711615) * <emilijan AT cpuedge DOT com> on Tuesday January 25 2005, @12:40AM (#11465279) Homepage
    There is a difference in coding between:
    a. You go and learn THIS game
    b. Learn THAT game and tell me the rules

    From the article it can be seen that they are still strugling with 'b'. Still, its a good advance.

    Just wondering, can it, learn a human language?

  • Shall we play a game (Score:5, Funny)

    by servognome (738846) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @12:42AM (#11465294)
    What I initially thought of when I saw "Machine Learns Game"
    Shall we play a game
    Love to. How about rock-paper-scissors.
    Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
    Later. Right now lets play rock-paper-scissors
    Fine
    A strange game. The only way to not look like a dork is not to play.
  • MORE FUZZY-LOGIC/INFERENCE ENGINE! GO PROLOG-AND-LIKE!

    Meh.

    Who am I kidding?

    Nothing new. Nothing to see here. Even if it is kinda neat.
  • How long before we have a man-vs-machine RPS championship [rpschamps.com]
  • I am not sure there is any strategy involved in rock-paper-scissor?

    It would need to decide what type of person it was playing against. A male would probably be more inclined to "Rock". Unless it thought that it's opponenent would be thinking that and would therefore choose "Paper" . Unless it's opponent would think that the computer would know that and would choose "Rock" because that would be the obvious choice and would know that the computer would know so.......

    That is rock-paper-scissor strategy??

  • The article repeatedly mentions the possible application of using this for intruder detection. What would one have to do, let it watch several intruders before it could spot one?

  • Unfortunately ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25 2005, @01:20AM (#11465482)
    ... it only plays at the level of Bart Simpson.

    Lisa's brain: Poor predictable Bart. Always takes `rock'.
    Bart's brain: Good ol' `rock'. Nuthin' beats that!
    Bart: Rock!
    Lisa: Paper.
    Bart: D'oh!

  • Strategy to RPS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @01:20AM (#11465486)
    This is nothing special. I remember my elementary school's Apple ][GS learning how to play 5-in-a-row or noughts and crosse
    s from this program called "AI".

    There IS a winning strategy to rock paper scissors, but it only works when you have a round of games (say best of 3, or best of 5)

    Initially, the first game is completely random, but reserachers found that if you chose the play that your opponent chose in the round before, you stand a 70% chance of winning the next round.

    It has something to do with how the human brain works.

    It's also something the Japanese taught me cause they play this game so much!

  • Aside from the gesture recognition, it seems like this would bean easy game to learn. The logic is basically

    If rock: paper win, scissors lose
    If paper: scissors win, rock lose
    if scissors: rock win, paper lose

    No variable amounts, just straight boolean logic. The next step up might be something like tic-tac-toe... where the machine could start to build some "educated" moves and techniques like blocking, etc.

    Really, what is exciting is the spatial recognition. Given the actions, somebody is still tellin

  • No ppl its not that simple.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by carburaettorr (770105) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @01:24AM (#11465510)
    The system described here is not your average random number generator with a text line output that any high-school kid can write. Let us look at the system as it is designed to perform. If you were the system you would be put into a room with some objects. Only thing that you will know are things of interest. 'Paper with rock drawn on it is important', 'Paper with .......' and so on. You would also know when somebody shouts 'I WON' its a good thing for them. Essentially it has in its knowledge base a tiny number of features which somebody else has guaranteed to be of significance to its task. The first challenge in building such a system is sensor fusion: i.e fusing the available audio and visual data to detect a state or an event of interest (I use the word event in the same sense as a trigger, something that prompts the change in state). The next and the biggest challenge is building the model of the game. Please check out http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~shm/ilp.html [ic.ac.uk], for a better description of Inductive logic programming. Seriously; the neatest thing about CogVis is not its ability to play Rock, Paper and Scissors, but its ability to actually go into an environment it has very little knowledge of and then observe, deduce and , not a blackbox model, as in say Neural Networks, but a human understandable model in first order logic
  • Sweet. I always wondered what that initial seed of digital intelligence would look like. Now i know... :)
  • Besides buzzwords, there isnt a lot of information about how this thing works. From what they do say it seems pretty shady, more like a magic trick than a smart algorithm. Forget about playing some silly game, the ability to identify utterences "unsupervised" from an audio stream is a pretty amazing claim. But what does this mean really; is it just a binary difference between silence and noise?
    And what exactly are the "rules" it learned anyway? R/S/P doesnt really have any rules or any strategy, so all i

  • Cat, tinfoil, microwave (Score:4, Funny)

    by FleaPlus (6935) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @01:29AM (#11465536) Homepage Journal
    I always preferred "cat, tinfoil, microwave" myself. Cat rips tinfoil, tinfoil zaps microwave, microwave 'splodes cat. The looks on other people's faces when they see you playing it is well worth it.

    Seriously though, this is really cool research.

  • That's easy! (Score:3, Funny)

    by adam31 (817930) <adam31@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday January 25 2005, @03:26AM (#11465935)
    I'll be impressed when the computer learns to play 'Cat, Tin foil, Microwave'

  • the Roshambot (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kafir (215091) <qaffir@hotmail.com> on Tuesday January 25 2005, @03:39AM (#11465978)
    If you'd like to play rock-paper-scissors against a computer, there's always the WWW Roshambot [stanford.edu]. It's not at all related to the CogVis project, but interesting in its own right:
    The WWW Roshambot utilizes an Artificial Intelligence algorithm in order to determine the optimal move for each round. It does NOT cheat (i.e. it does not use your move on the current round to determine it's move for the current round), nor is it random (except on the first move).

    Presumably if it played against Bart Simpson it would learn to always pick paper.

  • More info in research publications (Score:5, Informative)

    by FleaPlus (6935) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @03:47AM (#11466001) Homepage Journal
    If you actually want to understand what they did, some research publications put out by the CogVis lab have better information regarding the technical side of things.

    Towards an Architecture for Cognitive Vision Using Qualitative Spatio-temporal Representations and Abduction [springerlink.com] (Cohn et al, 2003)

    Modeling interaction using learnt qualitative spatio-temporal relations and variable length Markov models [google.com] (Galata et al, 2002)

  • RoShamBo and Data Compression (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shadowmatter (734276) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @04:29AM (#11466106)
    As a fun aside, I found this [berkeley.edu] RoShamBo (a.k.a. Rock, Paper, Scissors) Programming Competition entry that guesses what action is optimal based on Lempel-Ziv data compression. As the author explains, "there exists a duality between data compression and gambling. The basic idea is that if you have a sequence of data which you can compress well then the data must be predictable in some sense."

    Anyway, try it out. In the long run, it kicks my butt. I try to make 'random' decisions, but still go below .500 -- which is interesting, because that implies that perhaps subconsciously we're always applying patterns...

    - sm

    • Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mtrisk (770081) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @12:38AM (#11465259) Journal
      Yes, you should. The computer deducted how to play the game on its on. Chess computers like IBM's Deep Blue are programmed how to play chess and beat opponents before playing, and here, the computer doesn't even know how to play; it learns by picking up the sequence of events (the human players say "rock, paper, scissors, who wins or lose") and then forms the ability to play.

      Doesn't this seem like A.I.? Rather freaky, to tell you the truth.
      • It recognised 3 actions, and deduced that it had to pick one of the 3 at random. If they could demonstrate that with a more complex game I'd be impressed.
      • You sure you RTFA? The computer doesn't learn how to play, it just learns how to determine who won. That's not very impressive at all, considering the game was played with cards instead of hands, and there are only 9 possible hands and three possible outcomes (Left wins, Right wins, or Draw).

        So the computer sees "Scissors-Paper" a few times and then always queus up the "Left Wins" response when it sees "Scissors-Paper" in the future. That's just a different method of programming.

        Now, if only 6 of the 9

      • Re:And in other news computer beats world chess ch (Score:4, Funny)

        by bonch (38532) on Tuesday January 25 2005, @02:27AM (#11465739)
        In the event it learns global thermonuclear war, make sure it can play tic-tac-toe against itself.

        Or we will all DIE.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.