
Robot Hand Beats You at Rock, Paper, Scissors 100% of the Time - eguizzo
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/robot-hand-beats-you-at-rock-paper-scissors-100-of-the-time#.T-oNnmOGhzI.hackernews
======
meric
In Chinese, there is a term called 矛盾. Individually, the word 矛 means spear
and the word 盾 means shield. The story goes - once upon a time there was a
merchant selling spears and shield. "This spear can pierce through any
shield!" he says, "This shield can block any spear!" he says. An astute member
of the audience asks "What happens if you hit your shield with your spear?".
矛盾 is the term for "contradiction".

So let me ask now, what happens if you get the robot hand to play with another
robot hand?

~~~
chaosfox
they will draw with rock every time, because both will wait each other to
change their hands. they could draw with paper too, that will depend on how
the robot was programmed.

~~~
Alterlife
Nopes, I think they'll go into a loop...

First the robots both spot the other one appearing to go with rock and make a
last millisecond change to paper. Then they both notice the other one making
the change to paper, so they both go scissors... then they both go with rock
again.

Loop!

~~~
druiid
While that would be hilarious to watch, I'm assuming that there is some sort
of basic 'while loop' protection that they programmed in!

~~~
eswangren
Eh, I don't know... Have you ever seen some of the code that comes out of
academia? Interesting stuff, not usually very robust.

------
eridius
Typically in RPS you reveal your choice as your hand descends the third time.
By the time your hand is at rest vertically, your move is already visible.
However this robot doesn't make its move until afterwards. So the robot is
effectively playing rock every time and then changing his play to beat his
opponent, which is pretty blatant cheating. The only thing that makes this
different than a human cheating is the robot is fast enough that you might not
notice.

~~~
sounds
It is interesting to an A.I. researcher. I loved watching the slow-motion
version at 50x

When I took Machine Learning, we studied different "bots" in various contrived
game scenarios to illustrate the effects of imperfect information, non-
deterministic outcomes, and other kinds of noise.

The most interesting outcomes were when the bots learned to cheat. Since the
system doesn't punish cheaters, it becomes a winning strategy. I think humans
have learned not to cheat - for the most part - because at the most basic
level cheating reduces the group's overall survival rate. E.g. stealing food
from another member of the group.

tl;dr if cheating is so obviously the best strategy, maybe the game needs to
be revised? Because for this robot, cheat-really-quickly leads to 100%
victory.

~~~
mistercow
>I think humans have learned not to cheat - for the most part - because at the
most basic level cheating reduces the group's overall survival rate.

I'm pretty sure that our anti-cheating behaviors are mostly instinctive
responses, rather than something humans learned. We have an emotional concept
of "fairness" that causes us to punish cheaters. There's also no need to
invoke group selection to explain this (which is good, because group selection
has been pretty thoroughly falsified). Game theory gives us perfectly adequate
explanations in terms of individual self-interest for why cheater-punishment
is an advantageous behavior.

~~~
bambax
You're right that "group selection" doesn't exist; but our "instincts" have
themselves evolved into what they are, for a reason? Therefore, "not cheating"
must bring a benefit to the individual (or be correlated with some other
behavior which itself brings a benefit). The question is: what is that
benefit?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
It would seem that group selection could be possible, depending upon time
constants in the equation. E.g. if the group benefit accrued faster than the
individual benefit. Furthermore look at religeon, not a lot of benefit to the
individual but the cohesive group survival is improved. Lots of cultural
examples. Heck, even look at cells cooperating to make an organism - thats
group selection at the most basic.

~~~
mistercow
>Furthermore look at religeon, not a lot of benefit to the individual but the
cohesive group survival is improved.

There is a very strong individual pressure to conform to your tribe. Humans
are extremely vulnerable on their own, but benefit hugely from being in a
group. It is therefore of paramount importance for an individual to avoid
being outcast from the group. I think it is likely that religion is more or
less the name we give to the feedback loop that causes tribal conformation
pressure to override rational analysis in an individual's belief selection
process.

> Heck, even look at cells cooperating to make an organism - thats group
> selection at the most basic.

No no, that is _kin_ selection in its most extreme form. Kin selection is very
strongly backed by evidence, and differs from group selection in that the
individuals have an above average statistical overlap in their genomes. For
example, a brother and sister have an average of 50% shared genes, so genes
that promote sibling cooperation can propagate more effectively than their
complementary alleles, even if that cooperation causes some reduction in
survival of the individual.

In the case of cells comprising an organism, the overlap in genetic material
is 100% (excluding anomalies like mutation and HGT), so we see enormous
amounts of individual cell sacrifice which prove advantageous in preserving
those cells' genes by benefiting the other cells in the organism.

~~~
EGreg
Groups that find themselves in the same area become kin a few generations
later.

So I don't see why kin selection must be the sole mechanism to explain all
kinds of group selection. The group dominates the individual by indoctrination
from a young age, as well as by force. You can refer to all this as "culture".
The group is smart enough to threaten the individual with things that the
individual cares about, and the individual has evolved to be receptive to such
correction by the group, and learn to stop doing something, even if it would
give them a better reproductive fitness.

It just so happens that groups which live together start becoming genetically
related down the line. But the mechanism that acts isn't kin selection.

------
mwd_
So I know the article isn't entirely serious, but the "score one for the
robots" attitude seems pretty common and it's perplexing to me. Isn't this
"score one for the humans", since they have created and now control a new kind
of machine?

When I see robots doing new stuff I don't worry about humans becoming obsolete
(whatever that means), I look forward to the day when humans are freed from
the grunt work they do now.

Some people worry about losing their jobs in the rock-paper-scissors industry,
but I think this is a social problem that has nothing to do with robots.

~~~
jholman
It is clearly a social problem, not a technical problem. But it clearly has a
LOT to do with robots (and computing in general, and technology in general).

I am not a neo-Luddite (nor Luddite, nor primitivist, all of which are
different things), principally in that I do not subscribe to normative Luddite
beliefs (beliefs about What We Ought To Do). But the Luddite fears are
legitimate fears, for those affected; when the work you currently know how to
do is replaceable with (sufficiently-cheap) machinery, it makes you personally
poorer. (Of course, when MY job is replaced by cheaper machinery, it makes YOU
personally marginally richer, because you get better prices on the goods that
I used to produce, and over time this appears to be a net win).

And socially, we observe that increasing automation has, for the most part,
not freed humans from doing grunt work, as they once did. Except for those
people that have been "freed" into poverty. Admittedly, the poverty of today
seems to me to be quite a bit nicer than the poverty of 200 years ago (esp.
urban poverty).

~~~
rmc
_socially, we observe that increasing automation has, for the most part, not
freed humans from doing grunt work, as they once did._

Sure it has. Much less people work on the land now. Much less people shovel
dirt, till land and harvest crops. Also I don't need to wash ky hands by hand,
wash my dishes, and empty my chamberpot anymore.

That's not to say there is no poverty (there is), but its wrong to say there
is the same amount of grudge work as there was 200 years ago.

~~~
jholman
I agree that a shrinking percentage of society is doing agricultural work, and
certainly many specific tasks of grunt-work-of-yore are less grunt-y and more
automated.

But my assertion was not that "automation has not started doing any of the
grunt work we once did". My assertion was that the segment of society that WAS
doing grunt work is mostly not elevated out of grunt work TODAY. I assert
that, rather, those people are mostly either still doing grunt work, or else
are unable to find a useful role in society (a leftier turn of phrase would be
"they are being abandoned by society"). I can certainly concede that there has
been SOME improvement in this, but it's vastly less than starry-eyed optimists
seem to suggest.

Remember that this followed mwd_1 stating a vision of the future, in which
"humans are freed from the grunt work they do now", by which I assume (s)he
meant not just today's variant of grunt work, but grunt work in general.
Basically, my whole claim is that techno-utopianism is unrealistic, and it is
unrealistic for social reasons, not technological reasons. Not that it stops
me from wishing for it.

Oh, and a minor unimportant correction: the phrase is "grunt work", not
"grudge work", at least in most English-speaking communities. Look it up.

~~~
rmc
_I assert that, rather, those people are mostly either still doing grunt work,
or else are unable to find a useful role in society (a leftier turn of phrase
would be "they are being abandoned by society")_

Ah, now you're moving the goal posts. From "200 years ago X% of society were
doing grunt work, and today X% of society are doing grunt work" to "x% of
society are doing grunt work or are just loafing around". I agree that it's
wrong that there loads of people who are unemployed, or working crappy jobs,
but it's much better than when they had to shovel shit for 10 hours a day.

Tell a serf in the middle ages about the terrible future where people don't
work till they're 16ish (sometimes 20), then sit around in housing estates all
day doing nothing. Tell them how horrible it is.

Things have gotten better. We need to continue to make things better.

~~~
king_jester
> I agree that it's wrong that there loads of people who are unemployed, or
> working crappy jobs, but it's much better than when they had to shovel shit
> for 10 hours a day.

A lot of those crappy jobs involve the equivalent of shoveling shit for 10
hours a day. Jobs available to power in lower economic brackets and classes
are demanding: retail, fast food prep, janitorial/custodial work, day labor,
etc.

More importantly, just because a job doesn't require physical toil doesn't
mean it isn't a soul draining experience. The fact of the matter is that
increasing automation hasn't ended class division because automation schemes
are employed to increase the profit of those in control of business.
Improvements in technology do not automatically improve society, as most
technologies get exploited to divert more wealth to few individuals.

~~~
rmc
Yes those jobs are shitty, but they are better than 200/500 years ago.

(a) There are more labour laws now. You don't have to work as much. No more
shoveling shit for 10 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. (b) There are health
and safety laws now, if you were to shovel shit now, you'd have to have a mask
etc. (c) There are more labour laws now, so that the employer has to provide
tools and training. No more "shovel shit for 10 hours, you have to bring your
own shovel, oh you're shovel got broken, you're out of a job" (d) There is
more of a safety net. No more shovel shit for 10 hours, oh you broke your
hand? Hope you can live without food until it heals. etc.

Those jobs suck, yes. But ask anyone doing them if they think mediæval shit
shoveling is just as good (or better), and they'll say no.

~~~
king_jester
The present of labor laws does not mean that everyone has access to union work
or that those laws are enforced in some situations. The same goes for health
and safety regulations. There are plenty of jobs where you buy your own work
equipment (I've had them). Also, the most economically disadvantaged work more
than 1 job, so saying that people don't work 10+ or 6 or 7 days is not
accurate.

The bottom line is that those at the top have always exploited technological
advance for themselves while leaving others behind. This is a primary function
of capitalism throughout history. That some conditions may have been worse in
the past means nothing while economic oppression continues right now.

------
Zenst
If you heat the rock up enough you can burn thru the paper, melt the scissors
and win everytime.

Interesting is the aspect that given 3 choices people will tend to fall into a
pattern, albiet one influenced by what the other player does.

Also worth noting that variations of RPS exist for example Malaysians use
water instead of paper, and in place of scissors is a bird, made by holding
the fingertips together, forming the shape of a beak. The bird drinks up the
water, the water sinks the rock, and the rock kills the bird." (from
<http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Rock_paper_scissors>)

Funny thing is when computers cheat it is an achievement, almost feel
descriminated against being a human who if cheated would not fair as well.

------
sxp
There is an impressive video of this robot from 2009 showing off its
dexterity: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk>

~~~
alan_cx
Now that is impressive. Cheers for posting.

------
prbuckley
This is like putting a retail investor up against a highspeed trading
algorithm on Wall Street.

~~~
dedward
Well, those high-speed algoritms aren't investing -they're making money on
split second changes... nothing long term, and in no way predicting long-term
market changes. People do that.

------
10dpd
This is scary because the more you know about human perception, the more you
realize that this kind of anticipatory system can be applied to all kinds of
human decision making.

This is the beginning.

~~~
olalonde
The robot doesn't anticipate. RTFA ;)

~~~
10dpd
Actually, it anticipates your complete movement based on your initial
movements. Recent neuro scientific research suggests that we consciously
_justify_ subconcious decisions (as opposed to consciously reacting to
subconscious stimuli). Imagine a system that knew what you were about to say
based on your context, body language and subtle facial expressions.

~~~
olalonde
> Actually, it anticipates your complete movement based on your initial
> movements.

Well, it seems you still haven't read it because there is not anticipation
according to the article:

> It only takes a single millisecond for the robot to recognize what shape
> your hand is in, and just a few more for it to make the shape that beats
> you, but it all happens so fast that it's more or less impossible to tell
> that the robot is waiting until you commit yourself before it makes its
> move, allowing it to win 100% of the time.

I suppose what you suggest might be possible eventually but that's not how it
works at the moment.

------
te_platt
First chess and now this... It would be fun to see two robots play each other.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I predict an eternal rock/rock tie - unless these robots are also learning as
they play, in which case one of them will switch to paper, and win a few
times, before ... actually, I have no idea. Let's do this.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Based on what I've learned from _Star Trek_ , this will probably end with both
robots in flames and our civilization in ruins.

Keep an extinguisher handy and don't let either robot phone NORAD.

~~~
mynameishere
Based on what I've learned from Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots, it would be more
boring than the premise suggests.

------
Wizzard8
He (the human player) should've just played "Spock" and since the robot
doesn't know "lizard" it's a guaranteed win...

------
minikomi
There was a funny tv segment I caught here in Japan about how to increase your
chances at RPS.. If you let out a blood curdling yell or make a semi attack-
like movement just as you throw down, people's instinct is to clench. You
throw paper.

------
recursive
Given how fast it responds, and that most of that response time seems to be
the time it takes for the physical mechanism, this gives me hope that the
Kinects of the future will not be unusably laggy.

------
chernevik
"score another for the robots"

Not until this thing can beat water hose.

------
tluyben2
That image of the hand immediately made me think of Parodius:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tq7QngiiLI&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tq7QngiiLI&feature=player_detailpage#t=167s)
somehow :)

------
jader201
So what about robot vs robot? Will one be the first to make a decision based
on the assumption the other will be rock, and then it will choose paper? Will
this be the outcome 100% of the time?

~~~
Shoomz
Logically you would assume that both robots would tie. By making it no longer
about a faster reaction time you would be reinstating the basic principles of
the game. The interesting follow-up would be how would two bots that just
passed Turing tests perform?

------
westicle
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

------
delinka
So what happens when two of these play each other? At least one of them has to
not win, thus decreasing the track record from 100%.

------
jvrossb
I can see a future version of this technology turning into an amazing fencing
instructor.

------
jredwards
It doesn't look equipped to play rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock

~~~
Jach
You could have gained a lot more nerd-cred by mentioning this monstrosity
instead of that trivial rps5 version: <http://www.umop.com/rps101.htm> I would
actually be impressed if they implemented 101 different gestures instead of
just 3 or even 5. (They'd need a second hand though.)

------
altrego99
I guess to win, all I need to do is to tell the robot to not win. Unless of
course, someone threatens to murder a human hostage if the robotic hand does
not win.

~~~
Zenst
I somehow suspect that the asimov subroutines have yet to even have a comment
marker, let alone any code. Also given the highspeed nature I'd be somewhat
against testing them out with any human appendages of any kind, especialy
after a certain Big Bang Theory TV episode.

------
ameasure
I'm glad the world's scientists are working on the most pressing troubles of
our times.

~~~
bnegreve
Since technology of our times have been unable to solve troubles of our times
I think long term or fundamental research is our best chance to survive.

------
its_so_on
Oh man next they'll make a poker robot that whenever it loses a hand can
resteal its bet from the pot so fast you don't even notice.

------
zeroexzeroone
i dont care how fast it is, i can still give it the bird and mean it. it
cant...mean it.

