I found the recent contest in which an algorithm was able to successfully defeat four professional poker players in a particular version of poker to be very interesting.
What strikes me is not the fact that the algorithm was successful but the way in which it accomplished the task.
check this out it’s all interesting but pay close attention from about the 8 minute mark
and also this
From what I gather the professional poker players gave overarching four reasons for their defeat
1) The unusual and difficult conditions of the contest
2) The ad hoc reset restriction that placed a limit on the amount that could be bet on any one hand (equity chop)
3) The fact that the AI “bluffed” randomly
4) The fact that the AI changed strategies at times randomly
You could say that the algorithm succeed in this particular challenge by behaving in a way that was completely unlike a human player.
Traditionally Poker has been as much about understanding the personal proclivities of your opponent (when he will bluff etc) as about skill in the peculiarities of the game.
Apparently this AI won by taking removing that all important personal aspect and turning Poker into just another math problem. It should not surprise that an algorithm is successful in solving a math problem.
When asked if they could employ the strategy of the AI to improve their own games the players said it would be impossible for them to act that way.
from the article
Les said he’s trying to figure out how to adapt some of Libratus’s irregular betting behavior to his own game. It’s hard. “We just simply do not have the mental capacity to do it,” he said.
there’s no clear path to turn Libratus and DeepStack into players that could be confident of beating a group of flawed humans. That’s because the equilibrium strategy that the AIs use fall apart in multiplayer games, when the point isn’t to play perfectly but to identify and exploit the shortcomings in other people’s games.
I would suggest that with a little fleshing out least some of the reasons that the poker professionals gave for the AI victory could be used as a powerful proxy Turing test for determining if there is a mind behind a particular process that is of interest to us.
That sort of thing could be useful in evaluating Artificial intelligence as well the cause of things like the universe or the panorama of life. What do you think?