Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

unrealwill.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#111

Post by haneefmubarak »

learnstats2 wrote: post #100
Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://github.com/qntm/hatetris/issues/50 License: MIT

I'm not sure I deserve to be so downvoted for this, considering this clarification came after my comment ;(

I didn't downvote you, but I want to clarify what's going on because I know it sucks to get down voted with explanation.

The reason you're getting so many down votes is because you made strong claims in a harsh tone that turned out to be false in a trivially verifiable manner. The intent there is that you should've verified your claim through and through before attributing a misdeed to someone who simply sought to share something they thought was cool to make with others.

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#112

Post by chews »

got the fun one - ϢටາחஒටາɕଶϺເஈணಛזஈஐҲʩಱ௨ಇΚঀݣක൨ཧஓڐາஜௐงไऔࢶƣແࡑ௨ٯໃѠஓكƔݹமɨຯɓƐ೯ਗɒƏپІҁமҬҽћகڈງ൩ಳඤΚŦ௧ڄແࡥj൞ແࡑ௧ٯໃקஜsຽߟjඖИݸభටܤݷౚ൜ܔॠਯࡄȹࡨ௭Ӏไঅಳ༦Ͽࠇ৯ɜଖʣۑಲϼɪ३ࡃғݶլඝ૭טञΤһऑƏΣૹࢭ४WЅ൫সబςबਚตٮקߤڞЉݺԥ੯ܘऎஹؿકIظටෂܭݣೱૹॠઽೱϾא౫ටऐԃयప༮ȾಥժVѣԤงลஈஶϥЫɢݣങܗћமȾЈƸ௨ਵІƣدΣܐא౫ටलހਚڀฦӘಥ൞ࡋॿ౫ೱૹऔলට໓෧௧บܘԴ௨ॴໃԓଚපഉݺݳට༬ஈமටເђ௨Вȣݒ௧ϥಸࢠ௨ࠓƔݹ୦قӶɖɷජڛ൫ௐຂໃЋ௧αಭݺɷචՊݹஜsແࢭௐༀІܣ௨ঌໃv௧ʓଈѣלԊฐݒƃඦܪݹಎටƭƷஸ൶ถङஹس૪ॿಎظݕɥࢴقະߢਢഞบࢭশؿനєஓปȥݹகvૹऄরࡄଚࢢடඝૡƼಲʇДܥಳටȶɔѻRϼוϡɇݕƏېงลঅ௧ලล๐শطເוοтଖܡञƢЫݹࢳࡄරʤɶ৩ƫஜலڈฅஅಲڄໃܭҳ൞ෂݠணسວࢼథح๔ݢ൭శາזԫච৴ѰணػৠJथࡄժΜહঋඩसدƥ૮ࠁஐٯฅݶಈ౾Ͻࡁࢴقະॹοաݒկਙนͳܭޜӷ૮ࢭࢴقະࡨ௨ಅไݹಗقໃџɷටບZ௨ටໃݹ௨ටໃݹ௨ටໃݹ௧ƥІݷТsຯܖɾࡕ

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#113

Post by simondotau »

Pfhreak wrote: post #82
simondotau wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morally? I suppose if you squint hard enough. Legally though, just because one person's proprietary work relies upon another person's proprietary work, doesn't mean it suddenly becomes open source or public domain.

I'm just surprised the community made the critique on this version but not the other one.

Honestly I’m not surprised. The prior work could be argued as being fair use of the Tetris copyright. It certainly isn’t stealing any market from any official licensed Tetris products or services. Morally, I can find it very easily defensible.

This “Lovetris” work is a blatant copying and republishing of someone else’s proprietary work effort with no permission. Morally, I don’t see this as an egregious abuse, but I can see why this community would object to someone not acting in the spirit of open source licensing.

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#114

Post by bombcar »

Grustaf wrote: post #85
bombcar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TeX license requires you to change the name of you change a single byte. > All of the methods described in these books are in the public domain; thus anybody can freely use any of the ideas. The only thing I'm retaining control of is the names, TeX and METAFONT: products that go by this name are obliged to conform to the standard. If any changes are made, I won't complain, as long as the changed systems are not c…

What is your argument here?

That open source licenses exist that REQUIRE you take credit the moment you fiddle with the source, so it’s not universally despised to do so.

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#115

Post by thaumasiotes »

tome wrote: post #99
thaumasiotes wrote: post #87

There's nothing even slightly interesting about "Tetris which always gives you the best piece". The algorithm is as simple as can be: always give the long piece. This is doing something different, which can't be described by the given blurb.

The board is ten cells wide so if you always get the long piece then it takes four pieces to make a line. Lovetris gives you two long pieces and then an S[1] which means you can make a line in three pieces. That's the sense in which Lovetris is "better" than your proposed algorithm. [1] if you lie the two long pieces horizontally next to each other against the left wall

Making a single line is a very bad thing to do in Tetris. You always want to make four lines simultaneously, and there's no easier way to do that than by stacking long pieces.

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#116

Post by ShamelessC »

GistNoesis wrote: post #72
themodelplumber wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What .... That is exactly what happened to my wife when I sent her the link just now. "Here honey, this ought to be relaxing" and boom, two long pieces and then a Z piece army. I appreciate a free game but is this one of those abusive research projects? Edit: Undo and redo don't work here either

I'm sorry for your bad experience. "Undo and redo" shortcut don't seem to work, but the clickable undo and redo button at the top left work. It's a quick project which arose from curiosity : "what would happen if the hateful AI tried to do the opposite". This AI does its best to always provide you some outs to the limit of its abilities. You have plenty of freedom to guide the game into interesting landscape while ha…

All due respect - I wouldn't really consider this to be an example of anything close to approaching the subject of AI alignment - at least not in terms that people talk about in the past few years.

"Exhaustive short horizon exploring strategy with simple terminal heuristics" - is this in reference to the for loop which calculates the future possible states of the game up to a certain depth?

It seems to be a state exploration algorithm. The number of possible game states is well-defined here. Perhaps you're conflating the subject of video game AI with concepts related to machine learning AI?

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#117

Post by tome »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #115
tome wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The board is ten cells wide so if you always get the long piece then it takes four pieces to make a line. Lovetris gives you two long pieces and then an S[1] which means you can make a line in three pieces. That's the sense in which Lovetris is "better" than your proposed algorithm. [1] if you lie the two long pieces horizontally next to each other against the left wall

Making a single line is a very bad thing to do in Tetris. You always want to make four lines simultaneously, and there's no easier way to do that than by stacking long pieces.

I'm not trying to argue what is a good or bad thing in Tetris. I'm trying to explain the algorithm. Hatetris tries to maximise the minimum time to removing a line; Lovetris, as explained by its author[1], flips a sign, thus it tries to minimise the minimum time to removing a line.

If that contradicts your notion of "best piece" then either the author is being too imprecise or you are being too literal. Either way I don't think it's an interesting discussion.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27083716

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#118

Post by GistNoesis »

ShamelessC wrote: post #116
GistNoesis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry for your bad experience. "Undo and redo" shortcut don't seem to work, but the clickable undo and redo button at the top left work. It's a quick project which arose from curiosity : "what would happen if the hateful AI tried to do the opposite". This AI does its best to always provide you some outs to the limit of its abilities. You have plenty of freedom to guide the game into interesting landscape while ha…

All due respect - I wouldn't really consider this to be an example of anything close to approaching the subject of AI alignment - at least not in terms that people talk about in the past few years. "Exhaustive short horizon exploring strategy with simple terminal heuristics" - is this in reference to the for loop which calculates the future possible states of the game up to a certain depth? It seems to be a state exp…

The AI is optimizing for a different goal than the player :

Like a loving helicopter mom, this AI is trying its best to help you reduce tower height now (to reduce risk) whereas the human player has different objective often related to increasing its score over a certain horizon.

The thing is from the programming point of view there are not a unique way to define what should be a "best move".

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#119

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

seattle_spring wrote: post #98
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use the word “trigger” to mean mere annoyance. It is tragic that people with a hatred of people living with conditions like PTSD and epilepsy have turned that word into a joke. (I guess most people who use that word now are unaware of this history.) I know people who experience actual triggers and it's a very painful thing.

> Or use the word “trigger” to mean mere annoyance To be clear, the people that took away meaning from this word were the people that added "trigger warnings" to the most trivial of things. "trigger warning: meat eating." "trigger warning: bad words." > It is tragic that people with a hatred of people living with conditions like PTSD and epilepsy have turned that word into a joke That's really not what's happening.

> To be clear, the people that took away meaning from this word were the people that added "trigger warnings" to the most trivial of things

I would object to this on two grounds.

Firstly, seemingly insignificant things can be triggers. It doesn't have to be something people without PTSD consider a big deal, because by definition it isn't them who are affected. I have seen this first-hand. The source of the trauma and the thing that is the trigger can even be totally disparate. (Nice use of “bad words” to describe racial and other slurs by the way. That isn't trivial for the people affected.)

Secondly, in communities that centred around mocking people who (among other things) used trigger warnings, there was a self-perpetuating cycle of creating fake posts to reinforce collectively held biases. They began by ridiculing real content and ended up ridiculing fake content because they did not understand what was real.

In any case, it is a choice to decide “people I don't like use trigger warnings excessively” means that you can use the entire concept as a joke and ruin it for the vulnerable group it is useful for.

> That's really not what's happening.

I've seen it play out. There are definitely malicious actors, even if not everyone is.

Re: Show HN: Lovetris – Tetris which always gives you the best piece

#120

Post by learnstats2 »

haneefmubarak wrote: post #111
learnstats2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I deserve to be so downvoted for this, considering this clarification came after my comment ;(

I didn't downvote you, but I want to clarify what's going on because I know it sucks to get down voted with explanation. The reason you're getting so many down votes is because you made strong claims in a harsh tone that turned out to be false in a trivially verifiable manner. The intent there is that you should've verified your claim through and through before attributing a misdeed to someone who simply sought to sh…

I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued.

The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.

This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.

[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]

Post reply on HN