Interestingly, the world's best AI poker program *does* work by applying sophisticated Bayesian probability analysis to social modeling...
http://pokerparadime.com/ -- Ben On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > "There would be an insidious problem with programming computers to play > poker that in Sid’s opinion would raise the Turing test to a higher level. > > The problem would not be whether people could figure out if they were up > against a computer. It would be whether the computer could figure out > people, particularly the ever-changing social dynamics in a randomly > selected group of people. Nobody at a poker table would care whether or not > the computer would play poker like a person. > > In fact, people would welcome a computer, since computers would tend to > play predictably. Computers would be, by definition, predictable, which > would be the meaning of the word ‘programmed. > > ’ If you would play a computer simulation for a short amount of time, you > would learn the machine’s betting patterns, adjust would mean the computer > would be distinguishable from a person. > > Many people would play poker as predictably as a computer. They would be > welcomed at the table, too. If you would find a predictable poker opponent > and would learn his or her patterns, you could exploit that knowledge for > profit. Most people,however, have been unpredictable and human > unpredictability would be an advantage at poker. > > To play poker successfully, computers would not only have to develop > human unpredictability, hey would have to learn to adjust to human > unpredictability as well. Computers would fail miserably at the problem of > adjusting to ever changing social conditions that would result from human > interactions. > > That would be why beating a computer at poker has been so easy. Of > course, the same requirement, the ability to adjust unpredictability, would > apply to poker playing humans who would want to be successful. You should > go back and study how Sid had adjusted each hour in his poker session. > However, as humans, we have been more accustomed to human unpredictability, > so we have been far better at learning how to adjust." > http://www.holdempokergame.poker.tj/adjust-your-play-to-conditions-1.html > > Of course, he's talking about dumb narrow AI > purely-predicting-and-predictable computers, & we're all interested in > building AGI computers that > expect-unpredictability-and-can-react-unpredictably, right? (Wh. means > being predicting-and-predictable some of the time too. The real world is > complicated.). > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, June 28, 2010 6:35 PM > *To:* agi <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern* >>> ways, and *predictably.* >>> >>> Animate objects normally move *irregularly*, * in *patchy*/*patchwork* >>> ways, and *unbleedingpredictably* . >>> >> >> > > I think you made a major tactical error and just got caught acting the way > you are constantly criticizing everyone else for acting. --(Busted)-- > > You might say my interest is: how do we get a contemporary computer problem > to deal with situations in which a prevailing (or presumptuous) point of > view should be reconsidered from different points of view, when the range of > reasonable ways to look at a problem is not clear and the possibilities are > too numerous for a contemporary computer to examine carefully in a > reasonable amount of time. > > For example, we might try opposites, and in this case I wondered about the > case where we might want to consider a 'supposedly inanimate object' that > moves in an irregular and "unpredictable" way. Another example: Can > unpredictable itself be considered predictable? To some extent the answer > is, of course it can. The problem with using "opposites" is that it is an > idealization of real world situations and where using alternative ways of > looking at a problem may be useful. Can an object be both inanimate and > animate (in the sense Mike used the term)? Could there be another class of > things that was neither animate nor inanimate? Is animate versus animate > really the best way to describe living versus non living? No? > > Given that the possibilities could quickly add up and given that they are > not clearly defined, it presents a major problem of complexity to the would > be designer of a true AGI program. The problem is that it is just not > feasible to evaluate millions of variations of possibilities and then find > the best candidates within a reasonable amount of time. And this problem > does not just concern the problem of novel situations but those specific > situations that are familiar but where there are quite a few details that > are not initially understood. While this is -clearly- a human problem, it > is a much more severe problem for contemporary AGI. > > Jim Bromer > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China [email protected] " “When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.” ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
