4 ms·

Magic tricks created using artificial intelligence

30 points by cryptoz 12y ago

PaulHoule 12y ago
Yep. Systems that construct narratives like that can be entertaining. Performance and presentation of self are key skills for a chatterbot on the right side of the uncanny valley. (I.e. we can make an actor that plays Jarvis before we make Jarvis.)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
AndyNemmity 12y ago
I'm a magician, and it's one of my biggest passions in life. This is being reported in many publications as the first time artificial intelligence has been used to create a magic trick. This is false, not only has it been done by others before, it has been done by this team at Queen's Mary University before. Saying it's the first time certainly makes it more news worthy though. Edit 1: If I were communicating this to someone else, I would say that they used analysis to create a new method, not a new trick. It's a new method, if it's really new, I haven't validated that in magic, and the vast majority of time any method you have isn't new. But perhaps it is, I will take that at face value for now. Edit 2: "we suspected that audiences would be suspicious of the involvement of technology in the delivery of a trick but we’ve found out that isn’t the case." Audiences are suspicious of the involvement of a phone during a trick. This is a minor contention, but their quote is flat out wrong. It would be interesting to see why they came to this conclusion. Edit 3: Here is a video for the main trick discussed, "Phoney". Apologies for the misc intro, this was the best version I could find. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5qWi3yeu0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5qWi3yeu0M Edit 4: Analysis of the method of the trick - The captions say the cards are shuffled, but they aren't. They can only be cut. From there you deal 6 cards, and ask the spectator in order to tell if you if they are red and black. From there, you can determine the card. Edit 5: And for my last trick, I found this method isn't even new, I can see it published by Persi Diaconis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persi_Diaconis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persi_Diaconis Edit 6: As with any method, I might find a significantly earlier providence for the method, but I'm still looking for my own sake.
- AndyNemmity 12y ago
  Edit 7: Usually I wouldn't share a method for a trick, However in this case it is a mathmatic sequence, and I haven't seen anyone actually use this method. I'm a bit torn here.. but let's go with it. A version of the concept explained by Brady from Numberphile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWG6e-yBL94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWG6e-yBL94 Edit 8: Here's some more detail for the math types. Universal cycles for Combinatorial Structures from 1990 by Chung, Diaconis and Graham http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~fan/wp/universalcycle.pdf http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~fan/wp/universalcycle.pdf And Products of Universal Cycles connecting it's application to card tricks by Diaconis and Graham http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~ronspubs/08_05_products.pdf http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~ronspubs/08_05_products.pdf Edit 9: So far I think I've traced this trick back to Charles Jordan in 1919, however given enough time I'm sure there would be better detail.
- nkurz 12y ago
  For Edit 3, I think you might have included the wrong link. That's a very short video that shows only the setup of the trick. Maybe this one would be better? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hHgEa0CAdU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hHgEa0CAdU And while we're at it, is there any reason the videos emphasize the flip to show the face of the cards as they are being laid out? If they are going to do this, it seems like a much simpler and direct way to do the trick.
  - AndyNemmity 12y ago
    Re: Edit 3 - Thanks. I was trying to show one where the text was readable. I think both work, as far as I can tell. The video is actually the worst way I've seen to perform this method/trick. The flip is actually unnecessary, as is even asking for the color of each individual card. I really would like to continue further, but I already feel bad about any exposure I've included.
nocivus 12y ago
Its last trick will be to make us all disappear :D
aartur 12y ago
Is it AI? They had to formalize a problem and define what a "trick" is. So the problem becomes a search for a solution in a space of possibilities. If the space is small then brute-force search will find all the solutions. I don't think this kind of approach has anything to do with AI. Of course if the space to search is large then genetic algorithms or other AI solutions can be used and we can say it's AI... Looks like "AI" is a cool term nowadays and it's hijacking the more basic notion of formalizing a problem and using a computer.
- AndyNemmity 12y ago
  At the moment, I can't find anything they've added to a known card trick. Let alone how it was AI.

30 points by cryptoz 12y ago

Yep. Systems that construct narratives like that can be entertaining. Performance and presentation of self are key skills for a chatterbot on the right side of the uncanny valley. (I.e. we can make an actor that plays Jarvis before we make Jarvis.)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

AndyNemmity 12y ago

I'm a magician, and it's one of my biggest passions in life. This is being reported in many publications as the first time artificial intelligence has been used to create a magic trick. This is false, not only has it been done by others before, it has been done by this team at Queen's Mary University before. Saying it's the first time certainly makes it more news worthy though. Edit 1: If I were communicating this to someone else, I would say that they used analysis to create a new method, not a new trick. It's a new method, if it's really new, I haven't validated that in magic, and the vast majority of time any method you have isn't new. But perhaps it is, I will take that at face value for now. Edit 2: "we suspected that audiences would be suspicious of the involvement of technology in the delivery of a trick but we’ve found out that isn’t the case." Audiences are suspicious of the involvement of a phone during a trick. This is a minor contention, but their quote is flat out wrong. It would be interesting to see why they came to this conclusion. Edit 3: Here is a video for the main trick discussed, "Phoney". Apologies for the misc intro, this was the best version I could find. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5qWi3yeu0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5qWi3yeu0M Edit 4: Analysis of the method of the trick - The captions say the cards are shuffled, but they aren't. They can only be cut. From there you deal 6 cards, and ask the spectator in order to tell if you if they are red and black. From there, you can determine the card. Edit 5: And for my last trick, I found this method isn't even new, I can see it published by Persi Diaconis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persi_Diaconis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persi_Diaconis Edit 6: As with any method, I might find a significantly earlier providence for the method, but I'm still looking for my own sake.

AndyNemmity 12y ago
Edit 7: Usually I wouldn't share a method for a trick, However in this case it is a mathmatic sequence, and I haven't seen anyone actually use this method. I'm a bit torn here.. but let's go with it. A version of the concept explained by Brady from Numberphile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWG6e-yBL94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWG6e-yBL94 Edit 8: Here's some more detail for the math types. Universal cycles for Combinatorial Structures from 1990 by Chung, Diaconis and Graham http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~fan/wp/universalcycle.pdf http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~fan/wp/universalcycle.pdf And Products of Universal Cycles connecting it's application to card tricks by Diaconis and Graham http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~ronspubs/08_05_products.pdf http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~ronspubs/08_05_products.pdf Edit 9: So far I think I've traced this trick back to Charles Jordan in 1919, however given enough time I'm sure there would be better detail.
nkurz 12y ago
For Edit 3, I think you might have included the wrong link. That's a very short video that shows only the setup of the trick. Maybe this one would be better? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hHgEa0CAdU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hHgEa0CAdU And while we're at it, is there any reason the videos emphasize the flip to show the face of the cards as they are being laid out? If they are going to do this, it seems like a much simpler and direct way to do the trick.
- AndyNemmity 12y ago
  Re: Edit 3 - Thanks. I was trying to show one where the text was readable. I think both work, as far as I can tell. The video is actually the worst way I've seen to perform this method/trick. The flip is actually unnecessary, as is even asking for the color of each individual card. I really would like to continue further, but I already feel bad about any exposure I've included.

nocivus 12y ago

Its last trick will be to make us all disappear :D

aartur 12y ago

Is it AI? They had to formalize a problem and define what a "trick" is. So the problem becomes a search for a solution in a space of possibilities. If the space is small then brute-force search will find all the solutions. I don't think this kind of approach has anything to do with AI. Of course if the space to search is large then genetic algorithms or other AI solutions can be used and we can say it's AI... Looks like "AI" is a cool term nowadays and it's hijacking the more basic notion of formalizing a problem and using a computer.

AndyNemmity 12y ago
At the moment, I can't find anything they've added to a known card trick. Let alone how it was AI.