111–120 of 234 posts
Even if poker sites could somehow perfectly detect automated players(which they can't of course), highly skilled poker is profitable enough that some people would be willing to manually execute the actions themselves as directed by the AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In an orchestra, the conductor is not replaceable but the instrument players are. Similarly, someone who allocates his or other's capital cannot be easily replaced very much like the worker's.
Your engineer leaves there are 100 others ready to take the place. Business owner leaves you'd have to find a buyer to keep everyone going.
This is different from a CEO funded by VC's where you are still replaceable but nevertheless a lot harder to replace than the cost intensive worker.
Being on the profit generating part of the business and cost intensive part of the business helped me understand why such discrepancy exists-those who are able to read and perform in chaotic and uncertain environments will always be valued than those who directly affect the margin's as a result of the monetary figure attached to their time which is always far more costlier because cost centres do not generate new revenues. Your top sales guy makes $9 for every $1 spent on him (+$8) where as your top engineer costs $3 for every $0 he generates (-$3).
tl;dr: revenue generators are king while cost generators are easily swappable due to the high supply of it as a result of it being a far safer and financially stable perception.
Andrew Ng posted a comment about this on facebook: "I'm thrilled about Libratus' Poker triumph--this is a huge step for AI. Othello/Checkers/Chess/Go were theoretically solvable with minimax tree search and sheer computation; but poker, which requires bluffing, needs sophisticated modeling of your opponents and new algorithmic principles. CMU's Tuomas Sandholm has also (in a private email) promised to publish their a…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I hire the guy that read the papers and know who to hire :) In an orchestra, the conductor is not replaceable but the instrument players are. Similarly, someone who allocates his or other's capital cannot be easily replaced very much like the worker's. Your engineer leaves there are 100 others ready to take the place. Business owner leaves you'd have to find a buyer to keep everyone going. This is different from a CE…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are at worst top 15 HUNL players in the world.
How was this determined? Online play?
Sounds like the end of online poker is very near. This version required a supercomputer and took a long time to decide its actions but those type of things tend to be quickly improved given enough motivation. Even if poker sites could somehow perfectly detect automated players(which they can't of course), highly skilled poker is profitable enough that some people would be willing to manually execute the actions thems…
Andrew Ng posted a comment about this on facebook: "I'm thrilled about Libratus' Poker triumph--this is a huge step for AI. Othello/Checkers/Chess/Go were theoretically solvable with minimax tree search and sheer computation; but poker, which requires bluffing, needs sophisticated modeling of your opponents and new algorithmic principles. CMU's Tuomas Sandholm has also (in a private email) promised to publish their a…
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…
You mean Libratus' strategy used a very large game tree. That is not the only strategy. Take a look at research from the University of Alberta [0]. Also, I'm not certain Libratus' strategy can be simplified to "very large game tree" as I haven't seen the paper, yet.
While finding a Nash equilibrium means no other player can beat you, it doesn't mean you're going to make the most money in a big ring game. A different strategy might lose money to an equilibrium player, but exploit a different, weak player so much that it's worth the loss.
Anyone that's interested in reading a more detailed account of the experiment can do so here: http://www.pokerlistings.com/libratus-poker-ai-smokes-humans... The above article spells out some of the details of the competition. The winrate (14.72bb/100) that the AI achieved over the 120k hand sample is almost certainly not due to luck. It is a huge winrate that most pros have to employ strong game selection techniques…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I hire the guy that read the papers and know who to hire :) In an orchestra, the conductor is not replaceable but the instrument players are. Similarly, someone who allocates his or other's capital cannot be easily replaced very much like the worker's. Your engineer leaves there are 100 others ready to take the place. Business owner leaves you'd have to find a buyer to keep everyone going. This is different from a CE…