noambrown

9 ms·

1.
by noambrown 5y ago
It's in the supplementary material of the 2019 paper: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~noamb/papers/19-Science-Superhuman_Su... . Look at the "Variance reduction via AIVAT" section.
2.
by noambrown 5y ago
The four humans were getting $120,000 between them. Their share of that was dependent on how much better they did than the other humans. That means there was no incentive to collude. Top pro poker players understand the value of money. They
3.
by noambrown 5y ago
That's not true in practice for poker. Pluribus showed that if you run CFR in multiplayer poker you get a solution that works great in practice. Multiple equilibria are certainly a theoretical issue for many games, but poker convenient
4.
by noambrown 5y ago
Bots are superhuman in self-play Hanabi: https://ai.facebook.com/blog/building-ai-that-can-master-com... The remaining challenge is getting it to play well with human partners. Doing that requires modeling human conven
5.
by noambrown 5y ago
Normally 10,000 hands would be too small a sample size but we used variance-reduction techniques to reduce the luck factor. Think things like all-in EV but much more powerful. It's described in the paper.
6.
by noambrown 5y ago
Bots are superhuman in no-limit Texas hold'em. Libratus beat top humans in two-player in 2017 and Pluribus beat top humans in six-player in 2019: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aao1733
7.
by noambrown 7y ago
Bridge has a similar challenge, though from what I understand Bridge AIs are not superhuman yet. I suspect our techniques could be applied to Bridge, though they may need to be adapted a bit. The imperfect information in Hanabi absolutely m
8.
by noambrown 7y ago
Thanks! We're looking in a few different directions, but one thing I'm excited about is mixed cooperative/competitive settings. In poker, there is no room for cooperation. In Hanabi, you are 100% cooperating with your teammat
9.
by noambrown 7y ago
Open source it, learn from it, and build upon it to continue to push forward the frontier of AI.
10.
by noambrown 7y ago
Definitely!
11.
by noambrown 7y ago
In terms of Hanabi, this bot arrived at conventions that are pretty different from how humans play the game. We invited an advanced Hanabi player to play with the bot and he pointed out a few things in particular that he'd like to star
12.
by noambrown 7y ago
The search algorithm shares a lot in common with our Pluribus poker AI ( https://ai.facebook.com/blog/pluribus-first-ai-to-beat-pros-... ), but we added "retrospective belief updates" which makes it way more sc
13.
by noambrown 7y ago
Hi! I'm one of the authors on the paper. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Ask us anything!
14.
by noambrown 7y ago
The humans knew the whole time which player was the bot.
15.
by noambrown 7y ago
The hand logs from the 5 humans + 1 AI experiment are included in the supplementary material of the Science paper.
16.
by noambrown 7y ago
There was real money at stake in this experiment. The pros were guaranteed $0.40 per hand just for participating, but that could increase to $1.60 per hand depending on how well they did. To answer your question, no, I don't think huma
17.
by noambrown 7y ago
a. There was this paper a couple years ago applying CFR to single-agent settings: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.11424 b. It really depends on the game and the situation. It can be several orders of magnitude in six-player
18.
by noambrown 7y ago
Unfortunately we don't have any plans to do that currently.
19.
by noambrown 7y ago
We played 10,000 hands of poker in the 5 humans + 1 AI experiment. The number of hands won isn't a useful metric in poker. If you win only 10% of your hands and make $1,000 on those hands, while losing only $1 on the other 90% of hands
20.
by noambrown 7y ago
Our goal is to make the research as accessible as possible to the AI community, so we include descriptions of the algorithms and pseudocode in the supplementary material. However, in part due to the potential negative impact this code could
21.
by noambrown 7y ago
From an AI and game theory standpoint, there isn't much difference between two-team zero-sum and two-player zero-sum if the teammates are trained together. That said, the Dota 2 work is extremely impressive for a variety of other reaso
22.
by noambrown 7y ago
The CFR algorithm is actually somewhat similar to Q-learning, but the connection is difficult to see because the algorithms came out of different communities, so the notation is all different.
23.
by noambrown 7y ago
I think the bot would make a lot of money playing against average recreational players, but it's absolutely true that if you can exploit bad players' weaknesses, then you can make more money than what the bot would earn. We played
24.
by noambrown 7y ago
Honestly, probably debugging. Training this thing is very cheap, but the variance in poker is huge (even with the best variance-reduction techniques) so it takes a very long time to tell whether one version is better than another version (o
25.
by noambrown 7y ago
No, I don't have any plans to do that. This is really about advancing fundamental AI research.
26.
by noambrown 7y ago
It doesn't exploit its opponents' weaknesses. Its focus was on not having any weaknesses that its opponents could exploit. However, the algorithms are not guaranteed to converge to a Nash equilibrium in this setting because it&#x2
27.
by noambrown 7y ago
The AI doesn't adapt to the opponents, and that's still an interesting challenge for AI research. That said, at the end of the day, it was making quite a bit of money playing against elite human pros. I think that suggests the cli
28.
by noambrown 7y ago
The pros described the bot's preflop strategy as very sensible, so I think it's unlikely there were more multiway pots with 5 AI's.
29.
by noambrown 7y ago
The bot bluffs, and understands that when its opponent bets it might be a bluff. I would consider that to be strategic behavior. The fact that its strategy is determined by a mathematical process doesn't change that in my opinion.
30.
by noambrown 7y ago
That took place after the final version of the Science paper was submitted. It would have been nice to include but it takes a while to do those experiments and we didn't feel it was worth delaying the publication process for it.

More ›