Libratus, computer poker champion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Helios
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computer
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the capabilities of the artificial intelligence Libratus, which defeated professional poker players in a significant competition. Participants explore the implications of this achievement in the context of game theory, human versus machine comparisons, and the complexities of poker as a game involving strategy and psychological elements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the historical context of AI achievements in games, noting that Libratus's victory in poker follows milestones in other games like chess and Go.
  • Others argue that poker is less complex than games like Go, suggesting that it involves simpler elements like card counting and odds calculation.
  • Participants discuss the complexity of poker strategies, particularly the importance of bluffing and reading opponents, which they believe adds depth to the game beyond mere calculations.
  • There is a contention that comparing human players to machines in poker is unfair, as machines do not experience existential stakes or emotional consequences associated with betting.
  • Some participants point out that the format of the competition, being a long marathon with a limited number of opponents, may have favored the machine's ability to adapt and learn from the players' strategies over time.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of tournament play, with some arguing that the stakes are different for humans compared to machines, as humans have finite resources and emotional investments in their performance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the nature of poker as a game and the implications of Libratus's victory. While there is some consensus on the complexity of poker strategies, opinions diverge on the fairness of comparing human and machine players and the significance of the tournament format.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the nature of competition, the emotional stakes for human players, and the implications of machine learning in a long-format tournament setting. These factors remain unresolved and contribute to the complexity of the debate.

Helios
Messages
267
Reaction score
63
I've always liked news about computers that beat humans at games. I recall the milestones; checkers, backgammon, chess, jeopardy, go, and now Texas hold-em poker ( the modern and most popular variant of poker nowadays ). When a computer won at Go not too long ago, I told my friends who play poker, "Ya know, very soon a computer will master this game too." They replied, "No way, you see a human has the unique ability to do this or that. It's a hundred years away". Well...

"Libratus, an artificial intelligence developed by Carnegie Mellon University, made history by defeating four of the world’s best professional poker players in a marathon 20-day poker competition, called “Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence: Upping the Ante” at Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh."

https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2017/january/AI-beats-poker-pros.html
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
There was an ai that beat the best in chess and most impressively, go. Poker by comparison is simply child's play. Card counting and reading the odds.
 
Prideful said:
...Poker by comparison is simply child's play. Card counting and reading the odds.
Odds calculation is part of the game, but the strategies involved in signaling to other players via bets as play progresses are complex.

Still, poker is not a fair human-machine comparison, as the machine really has nothing to lose. A machine can't bet the car keys or the mortage, nor grasp the meaning of such a bet by an opponent. That is, the nachine can't suffer existential consequences.
 
mheslep said:
Odds calculation is part of the game, but the strategies involved in signaling to other players via bets as play progresses are complex.
Right. As the article points out, the key skill is being able to bluff (and sniff-out a bluff).
Still, poker is not a fair human-machine comparison, as the machine really has nothing to lose. A machine can't bet the car keys or the mortage, nor grasp the meaning of such a bet by an opponent. That is, the machine can't suffer existential consequences.
In tournament play, stakes aren't really at issue since everyone has a buy-in and it's money already spent before you start playing. The issue I see with this particular test was that it was a 20 day, 120,000 hand "marathon", which favors a machine's superior ability to track and learn. As the article says, the computer was able to adapt to the peoples' playing styles throughout the test. That is a lot harder if you are playing against 100 people in a week instead of 4 people for a month.
 
russ_watters said:
In tournament play, stakes aren't really at issue since everyone has a buy-in and it's money already spent before you start playing.
Machines can play as if in a 'closed system' game, but I contend there is no such thing for people. We're finite, and we live interdependent with others. Our time, our resources, are finite, and our performance is observed by others. Playing in a tournament effects these, which factor into playing in the *next* tournament. We can't come up with endless tournament buy-in money with no winnings.
 

Similar threads

Vote for the Breakthrough of the Year
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
High School Can you solve Penrose's chess problem and win a bonus prize?
  • · Replies 179 ·
6
Replies
179
Views
28K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K