8 ms·
Robot Hand Beats You at Rock, Paper, Scissors 100% of the Time
- te_platt 14y agoFirst chess and now this... It would be fun to see two robots play each other.
- pavel_lishin 14y agoI predict an eternal rock/rock tie - unless these robots are also learning as they play, in which case one of them will switch to paper, and win a few times, before ... actually, I have no idea. Let's do this.
- mechanical_fish 14y agoBased on what I've learned from Star Trek, this will probably end with both robots in flames and our civilization in ruins. Keep an extinguisher handy and don't let either robot phone NORAD.
- mynameishere 14y agoBased on what I've learned from Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots, it would be more boring than the premise suggests.
- Daniel_Newby 14y agoThe Arsenal of Freedom is one of my favorite ST:TNG episodes.
- tgrass 14y agoRock Paper Scissors Bot would destroy Chess Bot!!!!
- dwiel 14y agoSee the second international roshambo programming competition: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html
- prof_hobart 14y agoThere's a big difference - the chess one is playing the game honestly, whereas this (whilst still very impressive) is basically just very high speed cheating.
- mwd_ 14y agoSo I know the article isn't entirely serious, but the "score one for the robots" attitude seems pretty common and it's perplexing to me. Isn't this "score one for the humans", since they have created and now control a new kind of machine? When I see robots doing new stuff I don't worry about humans becoming obsolete (whatever that means), I look forward to the day when humans are freed from the grunt work they do now. Some people worry about losing their jobs in the rock-paper-scissors industry, but I think this is a social problem that has nothing to do with robots.
- sliverstorm 14y agoHave you never seen one of those movies where the robots take over? That's basically what people are joking/complaining about. (Sure, it's fiction, but can we say for sure it could never come true?)
- TeMPOraL 14y agohttp://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...
- sliverstorm 14y agoThis is not applicable to my comment. I was merely attempting to quickly and easily explain why treating "robots" as a distinct entity, rather than merely human tools, is an extant viewpoint.
- jholman 14y agoIt is clearly a social problem, not a technical problem. But it clearly has a LOT to do with robots (and computing in general, and technology in general). I am not a neo-Luddite (nor Luddite, nor primitivist, all of which are different things), principally in that I do not subscribe to normative Luddite beliefs (beliefs about What We Ought To Do). But the Luddite fears are legitimate fears, for those affected; when the work you currently know how to do is replaceable with (sufficiently-cheap) machinery, it makes you personally poorer. (Of course, when MY job is replaced by cheaper machinery, it makes YOU personally marginally richer, because you get better prices on the goods that I used to produce, and over time this appears to be a net win). And socially, we observe that increasing automation has, for the most part, not freed humans from doing grunt work, as they once did. Except for those people that have been "freed" into poverty. Admittedly, the poverty of today seems to me to be quite a bit nicer than the poverty of 200 years ago (esp. urban poverty).
- altrego99 14y agoI guess to win, all I need to do is to tell the robot to not win. Unless of course, someone threatens to murder a human hostage if the robotic hand does not win.
- Zenst 14y agoI somehow suspect that the asimov subroutines have yet to even have a comment marker, let alone any code. Also given the highspeed nature I'd be somewhat against testing them out with any human appendages of any kind, especialy after a certain Big Bang Theory TV episode.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Zenst 14y agoIf you heat the rock up enough you can burn thru the paper, melt the scissors and win everytime. Interesting is the aspect that given 3 choices people will tend to fall into a pattern, albiet one influenced by what the other player does. Also worth noting that variations of RPS exist for example Malaysians use water instead of paper, and in place of scissors is a bird, made by holding the fingertips together, forming the shape of a beak. The bird drinks up the water, the water sinks the rock, and the rock kills the bird." (from http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Rock_paper_scissors http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Rock_paper_scissors) Funny thing is when computers cheat it is an achievement, almost feel descriminated against being a human who if cheated would not fair as well.
- eridius 14y agoTypically in RPS you reveal your choice as your hand descends the third time. By the time your hand is at rest vertically, your move is already visible. However this robot doesn't make its move until afterwards. So the robot is effectively playing rock every time and then changing his play to beat his opponent, which is pretty blatant cheating. The only thing that makes this different than a human cheating is the robot is fast enough that you might not notice.
- sounds 14y agoIt is interesting to an A.I. researcher. I loved watching the slow-motion version at 50x When I took Machine Learning, we studied different "bots" in various contrived game scenarios to illustrate the effects of imperfect information, non-deterministic outcomes, and other kinds of noise. The most interesting outcomes were when the bots learned to cheat. Since the system doesn't punish cheaters, it becomes a winning strategy. I think humans have learned not to cheat - for the most part - because at the most basic level cheating reduces the group's overall survival rate. E.g. stealing food from another member of the group. tl;dr if cheating is so obviously the best strategy, maybe the game needs to be revised? Because for this robot, cheat-really-quickly leads to 100% victory.
- saraid216 14y agoLook up Kristian Lindgren's work on using the Prisoner's Dilemma in a Sugarscape scenario. Among the results were islands of Always Cooperate strategies buffered by Tit-for-Tat strategies from Always Defect strategies. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find any actual papers. :/
- mistercow 14y ago>I think humans have learned not to cheat - for the most part - because at the most basic level cheating reduces the group's overall survival rate. I'm pretty sure that our anti-cheating behaviors are mostly instinctive responses, rather than something humans learned. We have an emotional concept of "fairness" that causes us to punish cheaters. There's also no need to invoke group selection to explain this (which is good, because group selection has been pretty thoroughly falsified). Game theory gives us perfectly adequate explanations in terms of individual self-interest for why cheater-punishment is an advantageous behavior.
- meric 14y agoIn Chinese, there is a term called 矛盾. Individually, the word 矛 means spear and the word 盾 means shield. The story goes - once upon a time there was a merchant selling spears and shield. "This spear can pierce through any shield!" he says, "This shield can block any spear!" he says. An astute member of the audience asks "What happens if you hit your shield with your spear?". 矛盾 is the term for "contradiction". So let me ask now, what happens if you get the robot hand to play with another robot hand?
- chaosfox 14y agothey will draw with rock every time, because both will wait each other to change their hands. they could draw with paper too, that will depend on how the robot was programmed.
- Alterlife 14y agoNopes, I think they'll go into a loop... First the robots both spot the other one appearing to go with rock and make a last millisecond change to paper. Then they both notice the other one making the change to paper, so they both go scissors... then they both go with rock again. Loop!
- druiid 14y agoWhile that would be hilarious to watch, I'm assuming that there is some sort of basic 'while loop' protection that they programmed in!
- eswangren 14y agoEh, I don't know... Have you ever seen some of the code that comes out of academia? Interesting stuff, not usually very robust.
- isalmon 14y agoI think they are allowed to make their choices just once, so they will both see rock and make their change to paper. After that the loop will stop.
- zeroexzeroone 14y agoi dont care how fast it is, i can still give it the bird and mean it. it cant...mean it.
- zackattack 14y agoLook at the color of your text. I guess it can.
- jredwards 14y agoIt doesn't look equipped to play rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock
- Jach 14y agoYou could have gained a lot more nerd-cred by mentioning this monstrosity instead of that trivial rps5 version: http://www.umop.com/rps101.htm http://www.umop.com/rps101.htm I would actually be impressed if they implemented 101 different gestures instead of just 3 or even 5. (They'd need a second hand though.)
- jader201 14y agoSo what about robot vs robot? Will one be the first to make a decision based on the assumption the other will be rock, and then it will choose paper? Will this be the outcome 100% of the time?
- Shoomz 14y agoLogically you would assume that both robots would tie. By making it no longer about a faster reaction time you would be reinstating the basic principles of the game. The interesting follow-up would be how would two bots that just passed Turing tests perform?
- 10dpd 14y agoThis is scary because the more you know about human perception, the more you realize that this kind of anticipatory system can be applied to all kinds of human decision making. This is the beginning.
- olalonde 14y agoThe robot doesn't anticipate. RTFA ;)
- 10dpd 14y agoActually, it anticipates your complete movement based on your initial movements. Recent neuro scientific research suggests that we consciously justify subconcious decisions (as opposed to consciously reacting to subconscious stimuli). Imagine a system that knew what you were about to say based on your context, body language and subtle facial expressions.
- olalonde 14y ago> Actually, it anticipates your complete movement based on your initial movements. Well, it seems you still haven't read it because there is not anticipation according to the article: > It only takes a single millisecond for the robot to recognize what shape your hand is in, and just a few more for it to make the shape that beats you, but it all happens so fast that it's more or less impossible to tell that the robot is waiting until you commit yourself before it makes its move, allowing it to win 100% of the time. I suppose what you suggest might be possible eventually but that's not how it works at the moment.
- Wizzard8 14y agoHe (the human player) should've just played "Spock" and since the robot doesn't know "lizard" it's a guaranteed win...
- minikomi 14y agoThere was a funny tv segment I caught here in Japan about how to increase your chances at RPS.. If you let out a blood curdling yell or make a semi attack-like movement just as you throw down, people's instinct is to clench. You throw paper.
- ameasure 14y agoI'm glad the world's scientists are working on the most pressing troubles of our times.
- bnegreve 14y agoSince technology of our times have been unable to solve troubles of our times I think long term or fundamental research is our best chance to survive.
- tluyben2 14y agoThat image of the hand immediately made me think of Parodius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tq7QngiiLI&feature=player_detailpage#t=167s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tq7QngiiLI&feature=playe... somehow :)
- prbuckley 14y agoThis is like putting a retail investor up against a highspeed trading algorithm on Wall Street.
- dedward 14y agoWell, those high-speed algoritms aren't investing -they're making money on split second changes... nothing long term, and in no way predicting long-term market changes. People do that.
- westicle 14y agoA strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
- delinka 14y agoSo what happens when two of these play each other? At least one of them has to not win, thus decreasing the track record from 100%.
- jvrossb 14y agoI can see a future version of this technology turning into an amazing fencing instructor.
- sxp 14y agoThere is an impressive video of this robot from 2009 showing off its dexterity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk
- alan_cx 14y agoNow that is impressive. Cheers for posting.
- chernevik 14y ago"score another for the robots" Not until this thing can beat water hose.
- recursive 14y agoGiven how fast it responds, and that most of that response time seems to be the time it takes for the physical mechanism, this gives me hope that the Kinects of the future will not be unusably laggy.
- its_so_on 14y agoOh man next they'll make a poker robot that whenever it loses a hand can resteal its bet from the pot so fast you don't even notice.