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, Interesting) by KGIII on Thursday June 15 2017, @04:46PM (10 children)
To add to this, Mrs. Pac-Man has been used for AI testing in the past. Specifically, the 2600 version. (I think any carts for newer systems were just simple ports. I am not an authoritative source, however.)
This topic popped up years ago and I'm unable to find the source. If my memory is correct, there's a difference in the behavior of the ghosts and more random behavior. In the arcade version, the ghosts would head to their corners and would leave the box one by one. In the 2600 version, they'd all leave the box at the same time and not head immediately to their corners. The ghosts also all have different behaviors, meaning Blinky behaves differently than Pinky.
Which kinda touches back into my post further up the thread. There are different values for random. Some things are less random than others, but still considered random. (Not to be confused with true random.) There is more randomness in the 2600 version than there is in the arcade version - meaning that the ghosts are less predictable. Instead of going to their respective corners, they'll behave differently and this is inconsistent between game plays - though still not true random. (Not even close to true random, I *do* have a whole rant about the subject of randomness but you don't want to hear it.) IIRC, in the arcade version, they'll head to their respective corners and then converge on the player - whilst the 2600 variant would have them behave much more aggressively.
This makes it more difficult for an "AI" to beat. I'm thinking that I should be using the word "learn," as in, "machine learning."
Anyhow, MS isn't the first to tackle this with AI. Curiously, the fruit is also displayed "randomly." Each fruit has a different point value. I've not read/seen any published papers on this specific game.
Again, I'd like to make it clear that I am not even remotely close to an authoritative source on this - and I smoke a lot of pot. My memory may be fuzzier than that the yogurt in your fridge.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday June 15 2017, @05:13PM (3 children)
Have you considered a career in the Secret Service?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by KGIII on Thursday June 15 2017, @05:34PM (2 children)
Yeah, but only in passing. I'm too old, now. I served as a Marine as a way to pay for my education, then I went back in and saved money up so that I could get my Ph.D. 'cause the GI Bill didn't (doesn't still?) even give you a stipend beyond the 4 year mark.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday June 15 2017, @11:39PM (1 child)
Damn. I wasn't expecting a serious answer. I was just trying to make a funny in combo with the other news, a few stories down from this one, about how the Secret Service is going to relax about regarding stoners applying for a job.
(Score: 3, Touché) by KGIII on Friday June 16 2017, @12:14AM
I am always serious! (This is not true.)
Also, it's damned funny - I responded to your question and am off topic. Ah well, I blame you. ;-) They can mod this one off-topic, as well. I ain't scared.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 15 2017, @06:40PM (3 children)
Break out the torches and pitchforks, troops!! Ms. Pac-Man is a strong, independent female who don't need no man!
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Thursday June 15 2017, @07:57PM
LOL Good catch. I'll expect angry people on my lawn.
She was probably fat anyhow. She ran around eating everything. ;-)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 15 2017, @08:55PM (1 child)
Where exactly did Pac-Baby come from then?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @03:13PM
that thing where they figured out how to create sperm from bone marrow, duh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 15 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)
Actually, I would like to hear this. I know a bit about randomness from my introductory studies in AI, and some amateur interest. What is this rant abuot?
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Friday June 16 2017, @12:31AM
I posted a good portion of it, in a few different replies.
For starters, we call as sorts of things random that really aren't necessarily random. And, worse, we don't actually have the computational ability to determine if they're random. What they are, however, is "random enough." You can find some pretty good sources of random based on things like cosmic rays. There are some who will say it's true random, there are others who'd disagree.
(Hecht, Jeff, and Torrey, Lee; "Scientists Find Sources of Cosmic Rays," New Scientist, 99:764, 1983.)
I guess, if I had to put myself into a category, I'd say I'm an undecided determinist.
If you can get your hands on a copy of What is Random by Ed Beltrami, that is a good start. A decent uni library should have a copy. If you absolutely can't find a copy, let me know. I think I have an extra. I think...
You might be able to find some works from one Avi Wigderson, as well. They tend to work more along the lines of pseudorandomness and computation. There's still a bunch of good information and I believe they're still in academia so their work should be easier to find. As for a specific work, I'm just gonna suggest diving in at whatever seems interesting.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."