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

AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 234 posts

Re: AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

#101

Post by deepnotderp »

brilliantcode wrote: post #87
deepnotderp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "...academic rigor..." "...calculus.." Dude, I'm not even asking you for anything that difficult here, how would you like it if I walked in and said "well, I don't need to learn any programing, my time is better spent magically making it work".

I found calculus and academia generally very difficult. I'm happy to know that you don't suffer from this terrible affliction which makes studying difficult. You don't need to know programming if you understand your workers and they understand it enough to convey to you the time & resource constraints. I have a million dollars for this project. What are the features and functions that will maximize my returns? Hire a…

Okay, here's a million dollars a year budget, who do you hire ? If you've read papers and know about deep reinforcement learning , you'll know who to hire.

Re: AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

#103

Post by didibus »

brilliantcode wrote: post #92
davidivadavid wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you suggest you take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity if you have 0 informational insight?

Because the arbitrage opportunity isn't present in the academic papers but at a higher level involving business problems. I say this is an arbitrage opportunity because AI is essentially commoditizing human intelligence. It didn't take much brains for people to realize cars could do away with horses. You don't need to understand how a car works down to the formula. It's enough to view it as a black box and still know…

I think just read the Wikipedia articles about it. Also, the Microsoft documentation on Azure Machine Learning and the Amazon one on AML are good high level overview.

That should be enough for you to have an idea what expertise you'd want to hire for.

Granted, it sounds you're just looking for ML scientists or ML engineers. Data Scientist might also be able to help you out, so that's what you want to hire.

Re: AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

#104

Post by snarf21 »

limbicsystem wrote: post #93

Is 6-handed a significantly harder game or is it just (from the computer's point of view) just like playing 5 single games of heads-up?

I would argue that it is significantly harder. In heads up, you can call a bet and see the flop and go from there. In a full table, calling early means you may have to fold to a raise. There is also a much more complicated analysis of the possibility that you are beat. Lots of times I may be in a hand and think I have the original raiser beat but when two other people call before me, the odds are much less that I have all of them beat.

I still think the hardest part of poker is the grind. The computer doesn't get bored or tired and play hands it doesn't have a reason too just because they are stuck in a dead streak. Taking a mostly conservative style, you'd expect the computer to out perform over time.

It would be curious to know what percentage of the time the players bluffed the AI successfully and vice versa.

Re: AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

#105

Post by tqkxzugoaupvwqr »

brilliantcode wrote: post #5

it won't be long before we hearing more headlines like: "AI beats top 10 hedge fund managers" to "AI run hedge fund blows up due to black swan event" regardless it's an incredible feat. It really casts questions into what our edge as humans are which is slowly disappearing and we didn't even need to put a brain in a jar and hook it up to a computer....it's deep learning reinforced algorithms that is appearing to outl…

> It's almost like we've uncovered ways to automate our intelligence

I wonder if humankind will be the creator of a new form of life. One that is not bound by chemical processes. One that moves at the speed of light and spans the whole planet. This being, or these beings, with access to billions of sensors, will know everything, see everything, hear everything. They won’t be limited to visible light, nor to the frequencies we can hear. There are no limitations except for what sensors can record. They will be able to interpret, predict, plan. They are not bound by time as they themselves don’t physically age. They will use vessels to carry out tasks and build the infrastructure they need to live. In comparison, we will look like single-celled organisms. So dumb. Until we disappear.

Re: AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

#106

Post by davidivadavid »

brilliantcode wrote: post #92
davidivadavid wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you suggest you take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity if you have 0 informational insight?

Because the arbitrage opportunity isn't present in the academic papers but at a higher level involving business problems. I say this is an arbitrage opportunity because AI is essentially commoditizing human intelligence. It didn't take much brains for people to realize cars could do away with horses. You don't need to understand how a car works down to the formula. It's enough to view it as a black box and still know…

And yet the people who made fortunes in the auto industry were all car makers? What an odd coincidence.

But let's indulge your point of view for the sake of the argument. So you've got a black box AI that does something. You know what inputs it needs and what outputs it produces. How do you arbitrage it? What creates the price discrepancy that allows you to arbitrage at all, given that your incapacity to understand the black box renders you unable to gauge its value beyond what the market is telling you?

In that case, why not trade any random commodity?

Re: AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

#107

Post by digler999 »

mrob wrote: post #41
sethbannon wrote: post #34

"Each night after the play ended, the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Centre added computations to sharpen the AI's strategy." This sounds more like an "advanced chess" setup, where a human teams up with an AI to play. The title of the article should really be "amateur poker players + AI defeat professional poker players". The real test would be if the AI self-corrected over the length of the tournament, without human inte…

That's only true if the humans made decisions about what computations to do after each day's play. The computations could have been determined in advance, eg. always run some algorithm to analyze the opponent's play for weaknesses. That's not cheating because the human players get to do the same thing. It's impossible to enforce a "no thinking outside the game room" rule for a multi-day tournament.

I dont think it's "cheating", but it's not just AI that's beating the humans. If operators are allowed to change/tune the AI's algorithm, the human opponent should get to replace himself with another player.

or conversely, operators shouldn't be allowed to tweak the AI logic, but if they program the AI to tweak itself, like review its moves and adjust its algorithm automatically, that would be reasonable, then the AI and nothing but the AI is responsible for the victory.

Re: AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

#109

Post by mormegil »

leeleelee wrote: post #74
andrewprock wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised that Andrew Ng made this claim. The strategy that was built for Libratus' predecessor did not do sophisticated modeling of the opponents, or use new algorithmic principles. Poker is solved using a very large game tree, just as with the other games. The structure of the tree is modified to support the notion of hidden state, but beyond that it is essentially the same as the other games. The structure for…

This was my thought too. Poker is quite "solvable" meaning, whenever you're confronted with a decisions -- there is always a "correct" answer which does not have to depend on the other players' behavior or style. And you can find that answer by simulation, or game trees, and other methods. It's also important to keep in mind that the best AI can still lose, and the worst AI can still win (and everything in between).…

That depends on what you mean by "correct". Sure, you could theoretically find Nash equilibrium of poker and by playing the equilibrium strategy, you can ensure you won't lose. But that does not mean this is the best strategy to use at a given table against the given opponents, who (being imperfect humans) almost certainly do not play the equilibrium strategy themselves. And, by playing a proper nonequilibrium strategy, suited to the specific players, you can win more.

Re: AI Beats Four Top Poker Players

#110

Post by bduerst »

deepnotderp wrote: post #47
bduerst wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>AI beats top 10 hedge fund managers" Hedge funds are already using A.I. successfully. I talked one manager who's team was trying to layer successful individual neural networks into a "bigger brain".

Been there, done that (well kind, of, via several small specialized nets). Actually a pretty good trading strategy, but works better if you actually have capital to use it....

Rule #1: It's always better to trade with OPM (Other People's Money)
Post reply on HN