Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday June 15 2017, @02:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the wocka-wocka-wocka-wocka dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 15 2017, @06:59PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 15 2017, @06:59PM (#526145)

    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

    by KGIII (5261) on Thursday June 15 2017, @07:39PM (#526163) Journal

    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."