SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An AI created by a Microsoft-owned machine/deep learning team has completely conquered Ms. Pac-Man, achieving a perfect score:
At long last, the perfect score for arcade classic Ms. Pac-Man has been achieved, though not by a human. Maluuba — a deep learning team acquired by Microsoft in January — has created an AI system that's learned how to reach the game's maximum point value of 999,900 on Atari 2600, using a unique combination of reinforcement learning with a divide-and-conquer method.
AI researchers have a documented penchant for using video games to test machine learning; they better mimic real-world chaos in a controlled environment versus more static games like chess. In 2015, Google's DeepMind AI was able to learn how to master 49 Atari games using reinforcement learning, which provides positive or negative feedback each time the AI attempts to solve a problem.
Though AI has conquered a wealth of retro games, Ms. Pac-Man has remained elusive for years, due to the game's intentional lack of predictability. Turns out it's a toughie for humans as well. Many have tried to reach Ms. Pac-Man's top score, only coming as close as 266,330 on the Atari 2600 version. The game's elusive 999,900 number though, has so far only been achieved by mortals via cheats.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by KGIII on Thursday June 15 2017, @03:19PM (7 children)
Yup.
Random is one of my least favorite and most favorite subjects. At best, as I'm unfamiliar with the specific architecture, this game has a fairly trivial PRNG.
Why do I like random, as a topic? It boils down to a philosophical argument. Throughout history, we've thought of many things as being random. We would attribute those things to "gods" or "fate." Yet, as we learned more, we discovered they're not really random - but actually able to be understood and predicted.
We currently believe that the decay of an radioactive atom is random, yet that even falls within certain boundaries. Is it truly random, or is it just still poorly understood?
That said, given the level of tech that was available for this game, and in that era, I'm pretty sure it's absolutely not true random.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday June 15 2017, @06:36PM (4 children)
That's how I feel about quantum physics.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Redundant) by KGIII on Thursday June 15 2017, @07:46PM (3 children)
Quantum Physics has a whole lot of repeatability - but is not yet fully understood.
I guess, how to say this? Hmm... I'm not yet ready to pop the cork on a bottle of bubbly until we've a unified theory that has been demonstrated to be repeatably sound. Yes, yes I do realize that's a pretty high expectation, and may never be possible - and unlikely in my lifetime.
It's interesting that many consider Einstein's biggest mistake to be, "God does not play dice." Yet, here I am, largely saying the same thing - albeit with a bit of a modification. Meh... If I'm wrong, I am in good company. And, no... I'm not saying that random doesn't exist. I'm saying that I remain a bit skeptical. I have a pretty decent grasp on the science involved, but my opinion is certainly not an authority. By the way, his use of God was metaphorical.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by FatPhil on Thursday June 15 2017, @08:36PM (1 child)
"I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." -- Einstein
Some would place that as a type of pantheism, though Einstein himself shied away from that term.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by KGIII on Thursday June 15 2017, @09:30PM
Yeah, I couldn't really think of a good way to describe it. If I had to speculate, I'd probably say he was probably agnostic, at least in determination of a traditional deity.
I'm not sure if the reference really speaks to a higher power, or to a higher order? The latter not needing a deity, nor implying a deity or purpose.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @01:31PM
Well, you should have popped that bubbly a very long time ago. Our theories are enormously repeatable and sound, and there are no unification issues between QCD and gravity until you get to the Planck scale. With QCD, the Standard Model and all those particles fall out by setting, what, one or two free parameters? Your "pretty high expectation" is really "nothing short of perfection". Not even mathematics can have that level of self-consistency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 15 2017, @06:59PM (1 child)
side comment: quantum mechanics gives truly random numbers.
Bell's inequalities being broken is experimental evidence of that.
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Thursday June 15 2017, @07:39PM
We think... Again, I'd suggest that it becomes a philosophical question, at some point. I'm familiar with Bell's theorem. I believe the best way to sum that up is that local deterministic and local random variables can not reproduce what is predicted by QM.
It's important that I point out that I'm a mathematician and not a physicist.
What I'd suggest is that, and again this is pure philosophy at this point, QM is not totally understood - can we agree on that? If we can agree on that, I'd speculate that it remains possible that we simply don't have enough data to make predictions accurately. Again, I point to the vast history we have of belief in random events when they were truly just not understood.
To be clear, I'm not saying that I disbelieve that it is random. I am saying that I have a niggling doubt, even though QM appears to be well verified. I'd further suspect that that's partially due to my own biases, as my experience in academia largely centered around mathematics. I will even go so far as to say that I'm absolutely unqualified to say they're wrong.
There's a lot that remains to be understood and quantified. That's really the only defense I have for my lingering doubts.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."