In Shannon's time, it would have seemed Around this time, Arthur Samuel began work the capabilities of computational intelligence. By 1958, Alan Newell and Herb Simon the game world with the real world--the game had begun their investigations into chess, of life--where the rules often change, the which eventually led to fundamental results scope of the problem is almost limitless, and for AI and cognitive science (Newell, Shaw, and the participants interact in an infinite number Simon 1958). An impressive lineup to say the of ways. Games can be a microcosm of the real least! Indeed, one of the early goals of AI was to and chess programs could play at a build a program capable of defeating the level comparable to the human world champion. This These remarkable accomplishments are the challenge proved to be more difficult than was result of a better understanding of the anticipated; the AI literature is replete with problems being solved, major algorithmic optimistic predictions. It eventually took insights, and tremendous advances in hardware almost 50 years to complete the task--a technology. The work on computer remarkably short time when one considers the games has been one of the most successful and software and hardware advances needed to visible results of AI research. The results are truly of the progress in building a world-class amazing. Even though there is an exponential program for the game is given, along with a difference between the best case and the brief description of the strongest program. The histories are necessarily case (Plaat et al. 1996). Games reports the past successes where computers realizing the lineage of the ideas.
Scientists at the University of Alberta are cracking away at the complexities of artificial intelligence with their new "DeepStack" system, which can not only play a round of poker with you, but walk away with all of your money. This new technology builds upon the legacy of systems like IBM's Deep Blue, which was the first program to beat a world champion, Gary Kasparov, at chess in 1996. As Michael Bowling, co-author of the research and leader of the Computer Poker Research Group at Alberta, puts it: poker is the next big step for designing AI. In a game of Heads Up No Limit poker, DeepStack was able to win against professional poker players at a rate of 49 big blinds per 100. "We are winning by 49 per 100, that's like saying whatever the players were doing was not that much more effective than if they just folded every hand," Bowling tells Inverse.
It is no mystery why poker is such a popular pastime: the dynamic card game produces drama in spades as players are locked in a complicated tango of acting and reacting that becomes increasingly tense with each escalating bet. The same elements that make poker so entertaining have also created a complex problem for artificial intelligence (AI). A study published today in Science describes an AI system called DeepStack that recently defeated professional human players in heads-up, no-limit Texas hold'em poker, an achievement that represents a leap forward in the types of problems AI systems can solve. DeepStack, developed by researchers at the University of Alberta, relies on the use of artificial neural networks that researchers trained ahead of time to develop poker intuition. During play, DeepStack uses its poker smarts to break down a complicated game into smaller, more manageable pieces that it can then work through on the fly.
That's the reason why I was shocked by a piece of news that came out of London on January 27 this year. AlphaGo, a program created by Google subsidiary DeepMind, defeated the European Go champion, five games to nothing. Maybe you think that's no big deal. After all, it's almost 20 years since IBM's Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess in 1997. Chess is about logic; Go involves imagination and intuition.
Mirowski cites Turing as author of the paragraph containing this remark. The paragraph appeared in , in a chapter with Turing listed as one of three contributors. Which parts of the chapter are the work of which contributor, particularly the introductory material containing this quote, is not made explicit.