# Who’s Smarter Now, Mr. Computer?

By , 31 Oct 2011

The New York Times have posted the game Rock-Paper-Scissors – You vs. the Computer in the wake of the big Watson computer win over the human Jeopardy contestants.  They reduce AI to “building on simple rules and statistical averages” and present a game of chance, with some big claims.

They have two versions of the game, one that has to learn as it plays, the other that has some experience in the mix.

### Picking an Opponent

I’m no rookie, I have been known to dominate the RPS scene at my office and I know how to stare down an opponent.  Oh, wait…shoot.  I start with the sure-fire winner, the one you should put your money on.

### The Veteran Presence

So here’s their idea…after several rounds of play their computer will use statistical analysis to figure out your strategy, backed by 200,000 previous rounds of play. They don’t define the 200,000 rounds – as in, were they human played, were they 200,000 different people, if nationality or race or education played in – but for some reason that’s enough data to “exploit a person’s tendencies”, and yet, I have my doubts.

I decided to play 40 rounds.  If there was anything akin to AI in the pot, this thing should at least win one third of its games.

Here’s where I was a few moves in:

While it made some ground up towards the end, I was able to hold it off of any streak and the closest it got was within two.

After that, I teetered on +2-3 points and as high at +4-5 points, and ended up +4 over the computer, thus solidly proving that, minimally, if we’re going to partner a game of chance with technology called “AI”, we have a long way to go.

There was no stopping me by some ‘simple rules’ engine. ;o)

I want to point something important out about this statistic: for the one who is winning more that the opponent and the tie, they are beating the odds.  I am a combined +10 on 40 rounds here at the end of the game, meaning that not only am I beating an expert player, but I’m beating the tie-chance handily as well.

### Bring in the Rookie

Finally, I tried out the “dumb” version, the rookie alter-ego that must first learn the rules and doesn’t get the benefit of 200,000 other players’ moves in a database.  I decided to give it an extra 5 moves as a chance to learn some of the rules before getting into the play.

What? Shocker?! How could it be that with 5 more moves against an (arguably) weaker opponent I could have fewer wins?!

Oh right…it a freeking game of chance. Unless you put on your idiot cap and play the same hand each time, this is a game of odds and they are 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 as to what I’ll play next.  Period.  Just because 200,000 other people picked R-R-P-S-S-R before me doesn’t mean that I’ll play P instead of R on my next move.

This is not a prediction, even when backed by hundreds of thousands of records, not any more than a lady in a tent with a lit glass ball.  Over time I will win 33%, lose 33% and tie 33%.  It’s no different than a coin toss, with one more side to the coin.

The only learning that this ‘AI’ does is around the rules of the game.  To that end, there’s only really six (counting ties), and it seems to know when it’s learned them all, suggesting a bias in the first place.

### Okay, Yeah, But…

There’s more going on. I know it does some pattern matching and what not, but that doesn’t mean it’s AI.

After playing these games I walked through it’s demonstration about how it thinks.  It uses some good buzz words making it sound like it’s thinking, but really, this is just straightforward math equations muxed with some simple filtering that any first year CompSci student should be able to figure out.

No magic here, folks, move along.

### Conclusion

The programmers at the New York Times have created a good gimmick that will fool most of the general population into believing that they have created some form of artificial intelligence that, when it mates with Watson, is ready to techno-freak the humans into submission.

Hey, it may even be an impressive chunk of code, but it does not represent any of the modern complexities that some impressive minds (like those at IBM) have solved.

I could likely to write a version just as capable by picking randomly the answer.

Better yet, I’m going to write a traffic light color prediction engine.

Look out, Matrix, we’re all about to take the blue pill. Or was that the red?

 TheyCallMeMrJames Software Developer (Senior) Canada Member
For almost 30 years I have been working with computers, learning a myriad of languages and participating in various computing environments.

Though I have been mentoring other developers for the last decade, I have recently found a strong interest in writing and am learning to translate the fun of in-person teaching to something I can get into article form.

I enjoy following technology trends, new gadgets and trying to guess where innovation will lead us next (I'm kinda holding out for a robot-served utopia, but willing to submit to our future robot leaders).

I am a guy who is passionate about my faith, my family and a cure for Juvenile Diabetes (my son lives with this disease).

Votes of 3 or less require a comment

Hint: For improved responsiveness ensure Javascript is enabled and choose 'Normal' from the Layout dropdown and hit 'Update'.
 Search this forum Profile popups    Spacing RelaxedCompactTight   Noise Very HighHighMediumLowVery Low   Layout Open AllThread ViewNo JavascriptPreview   Per page 102550
 First Prev Next
 Six Months Later TheyCallMeMrJames 1 Nov '11 - 3:26
 This article was written back in May, not sure how it hit the site today (I though they were imported daily?).   I entered a bot in Rock-Paper-Azure[^] earlier this year, after this article was posted. I was surprised to see that the top bots were winning their 1000 game rounds against opponents, sometimes with a winning percentage as high as 90% (or more).   But RPA is a different beast. They add dynamite and water balloons to the mix, which means strategy comes into play as dynamite is a limited resource and water balloons can be self-destructive if used incorrectly.   When you're doing the game in person, it's a different beast as well. You can play mind games and give false tells. You can be super suggestive. You can tell them what you're going to throw.   I still maintain that that the version posted on the NYT site is NOT artificial intelligence. Perhaps a slick algorithm. At best, some fancy predictive scripting.   But I just played 40 rounds and came out 20-11-9. Not only did I beat the AI, but I beat the natural odds of the game. My Latest: How quickly is the Government spending your money? Tech blog: They Call me Mister James Sign In·View Thread·Permalink
 Last Visit: 31 Dec '99 - 18:00     Last Update: 25 May '13 - 5:58 Refresh 1