CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
1–10 of 123 posts
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#2Easy with 16 tetra of ram
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#3[deleted]
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#4Easy with 16 tetra of ram
And tanking for 1+ mins on turn and river decisions (it would time out in real online poker). And $10M in computer resources. But impressive nonetheless.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#5Libratus biggest edge is probably grinding away at their blunders & tendencies (eg. Don never check raise bluffs in this spot, so I can safely value bet). It would be really interesting if they published the bots results vs. a mythical generic player. The difference would be a nice estimate as to how big an edge it derives from backtesting it's personalization strategies.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#6Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#7They should do a Libratus vs Deepstack tournament https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01724
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#8Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#9Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…
Why is it unfair? Both the human and computer players are unable to make reads on the other based on physical cues.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#10Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…
Why is it unfair? Both the human and computer players are unable to make reads on the other based on physical cues.
If it's unfair in any regard (and I disagree with GP that it's unfair on the merit of physical reads), it's that humans get fatigued and computers do not. Having played poker for stretches of 16+ hours I know that the number of mistakes I make late in the day drastically outnumber the ones I make when I am fresh. And breaks only do so much to counter this fatigue.
I'd have to say that playing poker for long stretches of time is at least as, and possibly more so, than grinding for 12-16 hours writing code.
Even still, it's a stretch to call it unfair. It is brains vs. AI, after all, and that will always be true of brains no matter the task - fatigue is a factor, and this is where AI will have important advantages in the future.