Post subject: Can we classify the player in TAS video as AI?
Joined: 3/14/2016
Posts: 2
Can we classify the player in TAS video as AI? Someone discussed this topic with me, what do you think?
Active player (276)
Joined: 4/30/2009
Posts: 791
No. All decisions about inputs are made by a player. Bots will be used occasionally for repetitive tasks or to make manipulation of RNGs easier, but ultimately the decision is left to a human as to what inputs are selected. A fully automated TAS hasn't been made yet as far as I know, but it could happen sometime.
Skilled player (1534)
Joined: 7/25/2007
Posts: 299
Location: UK
A piano playing a piano roll is not one which is running off AI. It's just a predetermined series of instructions, which is not being calculated/generated in real time via an artificial thinking machine.
Amaraticando
It/Its
Editor, Player (158)
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 673
Location: Brazil
No, the player is a natural being. But, there're some bots that try to TAS parts of a game. May we call them AI?
Joined: 3/14/2016
Posts: 2
Toothache wrote:
No. All decisions about inputs are made by a player. Bots will be used occasionally for repetitive tasks or to make manipulation of RNGs easier, but ultimately the decision is left to a human as to what inputs are selected. A fully automated TAS hasn't been made yet as far as I know, but it could happen sometime.
This is exactly the same as what i discussed with him, so he started to search and found that there is a concept called TAS-bot and TAS is achieved by bot, human can't do such gameplay even with slow motion and S/L. Such a fool.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11274
Location: RU
kazene wrote:
there is a concept called TAS-bot and TAS is achieved by bot, human can't do such gameplay
Just wow.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
WST
She/Her
Active player (450)
Joined: 10/6/2011
Posts: 1690
Location: RU · ID · AM
I guess that TAS block on AGDQ resulted in some weird gossip… And some people probably think that the runs were done by the TASbot itself, lol.
S3&A [Amy amy%] improvement (with Evil_3D & kaan55) — currently in SPZ2 my TAS channel · If I ever come into your dream, I’ll be riding an eggship :)
Experienced player (599)
Joined: 2/8/2009
Posts: 656
It baffles me that there are really people coming to the conclusion that the runs at AGDQ are done by Tasbot itself.... If we really managed to create such a bot we'd probably be in all kind of computer science magazines.
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
Well, "artificial" just means something made by people instead of occurring naturally, right? And people are made by people, so by that logic, people are artificial (aside from whatever you decide the "first" people were, who of course occurred naturally). Assuming then that you buy that people are intelligent, people are artificial intelligences. ;)
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Masterjun
He/Him
Site Developer, Skilled player (1971)
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 1179
Location: Germany
Let's just quote wikipedia on Artificial intelligence:
Wikipedia wrote:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software.
Well that was somewhat to be expected. Alright, then let's quickly switch to the Wikipedia page of Intelligence:
Wikipedia wrote:
It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment.
The only information TASBot can perceive is the latch from the console asking for input, to which it replies with the input data stored in its brain. (This information in the brain, however, is being given by a human and it's not being modified) This means that whether or not you want to call TASBot an AI, it's never going to be an AI playing a game. At most, it's going to be an AI being really good at playing back a movie. Though, I don't know if we can just simply apply definitons to this question.
kazene wrote:
human can't do such gameplay even with slow motion and S/L.
Yes they can. That's how it's being done. Flutter A.I is superior anyways!
Warning: Might glitch to credits I will finish this ACE soon as possible (or will I?)
Arc
Editor, Experienced player (769)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 534
Location: Arizona
Philosophically, I think that artificial intelligence requires the ability to think in all of the ways that humans can think. In a Turing test, a bot can fairly easily mimic a human in knowledge and problem solving. (A human and bot would answer 'what is the atomic number of hydrogen' or 'what is 2+2' the same way.) Creativity is where AI falls short, at least for now. If you ask a human to 'list some creative uses for a paper clip,' you will get answers like a fish hook, lock pick, earring, etc. A Turing test bot won't respond that way. At best, it will say something like, 'how about you list some creative uses for a paper clip.' More likely it will say something irrelevant. Specific to TASing, even a run generated completely by a bot isn't really AI. We can program a bot to find faster solutions, but what about creativity? A bot playing the SMB3 airships wouldn't bounce off of the cannonballs to obtain 99+ lives magnificently. Brain Age is a good test of AI. Could it create (on its own) a beautiful drawing? Could it draw something funny? Could it draw something sad? Until it can create a Brain Age TAS the way humans can (original ideas, including art, humor, emotions), it's not really AI to me.
creaothceann
He/Him
Editor
Joined: 4/7/2005
Posts: 1874
Location: Germany
Arc wrote:
Creativity is where AI falls short, at least for now.
wired wrote:
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — At first, Fan Hui thought the move was rather odd. But then he saw its beauty. “It’s not a human move. I’ve never seen a human play this move,” he says. “So beautiful.” It’s a word he keeps repeating. Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful. The move in question was the 37th in the second game of the historic Go match between Lee Sedol, one of the world’s top players, and AlphaGo, an artificially intelligent computing system built by researchers at Google. Inside the towering Four Seasons hotel in downtown Seoul, the game was approaching the end of its first hour when AlphaGo instructed its human assistant to place a black stone in a largely open area on the right-hand side of the 19-by-19 grid that defines this ancient game. And just about everyone was shocked. “That’s a very strange move,” said one of the match’s English language commentators, who is himself a very talented Go player. Then the other chuckled and said: “I thought it was a mistake.” But perhaps no one was more surprised than Lee Sedol, who stood up and left the match room. “He had to go wash his face or something—just to recover,” said the first commentator. Even after Lee Sedol returned to the table, he didn’t quite know what to do, spending nearly 15 minutes considering his next play. AlphaGo’s move didn’t seem to connect with what had come before. In essence, the machine was abandoning a group of stones on the lower half of the board to make a play in a different area. AlphaGo placed its black stone just beneath a single white stone played earlier by Lee Sedol, and though the move may have made sense in another situation, it was completely unexpected in that particular place at that particular time—a surprise all the more remarkable when you consider that people have been playing Go for more than 2,500 years. The commentators couldn’t even begin to evaluate the merits of the move.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11274
Location: RU
So how fruitful was that move in the end, regardless of how odd and beautiful it looked?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
creaothceann
He/Him
Editor
Joined: 4/7/2005
Posts: 1874
Location: Germany
It probably was the move that won the game.
Skilled player (1707)
Joined: 9/17/2009
Posts: 4952
Location: ̶C̶a̶n̶a̶d̶a̶ "Kanatah"
So....how feasible will a MarI/O but for playarounds be?