Computer Teaches Itself How To Beat Super Mario

I'm not really sure it taught itself anything so much as it just repeated set moves until it passed without error. It certainly didn't learn to avoid identical objects later in the map, it just changed how it moved at that point and died again from the same mob type it ran into.
 
techrat said:
I'm not really sure it taught itself anything so much as it just repeated set moves until it passed without error. It certainly didn't learn to avoid identical objects later in the map, it just changed how it moved at that point and died again from the same mob type it ran into.
Click to expand...

It's "evolutionary programming" there is a goal, in this case the fitness value which is based upon how far it got with some time modifier. Each generation has a series of tries, from those it takes a certain amount that got the highest fitness score, and then from those it tried different things, and again did those a certain amount of times to get a new set of fitness scores to choose for the next generation.

So yeah, calling it learning might be a stretch, it's a brute force type of computation, that uses the best results to grow from and become "better" (as a function of fitness).

This is in no way new, just using this to do Mario is new. The program actually breaks it down quite simplistically too, each enemy is the same as "bad", doesn't even take into account if enemies fire projectiles, but there is a pattern to the game, and as such a technique like this does work. Jump too soon, the fireballs get you, jump too late you run into the flower, just right... you jump over the fireballs and get further (more fitness) so that string of moves will move on while the other two don't.

You can get some fascinating results by using this, but at the end of the day it is brute force, so you are limited to how fast it can "evolve" by computer power.
 
I like how he threw in there that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

LOL.

Think about it this way.

1. Matter somehow just comes into existence all by itself from nothing.

2. Somehow that matter organizes itself into such a way that it creates planets, stars, etc.

3. Somehow on what is now knows as Earth, the matter somehow turns into different elements.

4. Somehow it does so in such a perfect way, that Earth can now support carbon based life.

5. Then some matter on Earth somehow turns into amino acids.

6. Then some of those amino acids arrange into such a way that life spontaneously begins.

7. Not only does one organism come to life, but it does it in such a way that it can reproduce.

8. By the whole neural network explanation, this would be impossible to happen on the very first try

9. Taking that into account, a new organism would have to come into existence and by some unfathomable luck be able to reproduce since the "knowledge" of the previous organism would not be passed on.

10. How many times would this have to happen before an organism would actually be able to reproduce the very first try?

11. Now, how many trial/error scenarios would it take for a single cell organism to "evolve" into anything more complex?

The idea is just laughable.
 
cyclone3d said:
I like how he threw in there that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

LOL.
Click to expand...

What is your counter? That a god created everything? If that is it, what created the god? What's more plausible, that a supreme being just "poofed" into existence or that a single cell organism evolved over billions of years?
 
cyclone3d said:
I like how he threw in there that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

LOL.

Think about it this way.

1. Matter somehow just comes into existence all by itself from nothing.

2. Somehow that matter organizes itself into such a way that it creates planets, stars, etc.

3. Somehow on what is now knows as Earth, the matter somehow turns into different elements.

4. Somehow it does so in such a perfect way, that Earth can now support carbon based life.

5. Then some matter on Earth somehow turns into amino acids.

6. Then some of those amino acids arrange into such a way that life spontaneously begins.

7. Not only does one organism come to life, but it does it in such a way that it can reproduce.

8. By the whole neural network explanation, this would be impossible to happen on the very first try

9. Taking that into account, a new organism would have to come into existence and by some unfathomable luck be able to reproduce since the "knowledge" of the previous organism would not be passed on.

10. How many times would this have to happen before an organism would actually be able to reproduce the very first try?

11. Now, how many trial/error scenarios would it take for a single cell organism to "evolve" into anything more complex?

The idea is just laughable.
Click to expand...

Given a time frame of billions of years, no it's not. An invisible being, that lives in some ethereal plane of existence, that created everything in 7 days, sees and judges everything that everyone on the earth is doing, and sends the ones who don't follow his rules to some place of fire and brimstone is pretty hilarious though.
 
cyclone3d said:
I am actually really smart and I got wisdom from the bibble:

1. god somehow just comes into existence all by itself from nothing.

2. god creates everything

3. god impresses a few bronze age goat herders with magic tricks

4. god suddenly vanishes and has stopped doing his miracles for two thousand years

The idea is just brilliant.
Click to expand...

FTFY

btw, there was no reason to shit up this news post with your creationism.
 
sfsuphysics said:
It's "evolutionary programming" there is a goal, in this case the fitness value which is based upon how far it got with some time modifier. Each generation has a series of tries, from those it takes a certain amount that got the highest fitness score, and then from those it tried different things, and again did those a certain amount of times to get a new set of fitness scores to choose for the next generation.

So yeah, calling it learning might be a stretch, it's a brute force type of computation, that uses the best results to grow from and become "better" (as a function of fitness).
Click to expand...

I'm cool with calling it learning or self teaching, learning is pretty much all brute force in the beginning. Once you learn a particular procedure or algorithm, you can use that to shortcut the process when you encounter a similar situation in the future. I see this as similar to the programs that are designed to teach a simulation the best way to run with 2 legs.

I would like to see him go into greater detail of when it needed to back up and try another branch.

Right now its well on its way to determining best speed runs. It will be cool to see what it can come up with when the objective is changed to score.
 
cyclone3d said:
I like how he threw in there that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

LOL.

Think about it this way.

1. Matter somehow just comes into existence all by itself from nothing.

2. Somehow that matter organizes itself into such a way that it creates planets, stars, etc.

3. Somehow on what is now knows as Earth, the matter somehow turns into different elements.

4. Somehow it does so in such a perfect way, that Earth can now support carbon based life.

5. Then some matter on Earth somehow turns into amino acids.

6. Then some of those amino acids arrange into such a way that life spontaneously begins.

7. Not only does one organism come to life, but it does it in such a way that it can reproduce.

8. By the whole neural network explanation, this would be impossible to happen on the very first try

9. Taking that into account, a new organism would have to come into existence and by some unfathomable luck be able to reproduce since the "knowledge" of the previous organism would not be passed on.

10. How many times would this have to happen before an organism would actually be able to reproduce the very first try?

11. Now, how many trial/error scenarios would it take for a single cell organism to "evolve" into anything more complex?

The idea is just laughable.
Click to expand...

Is this a fancy argument from ignorance?

resized_ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-i-don-t-know-therefore-god-0a163c.jpg
 
Spidey329 said:
What is your counter? That a god created everything? If that is it, what created the god? What's more plausible, that a supreme being just "poofed" into existence or that a single cell organism evolved over billions of years?
Click to expand...

So just adding more and more time makes everything possible?

If that were the case we would still be seeing NEW organisms come into existence.

The level of complexity in even the simplest of organisms is a statistical impossibility for it to just happen by chance, not to mention then level of complexity in everything lining up just right at a single point in time for something as impossible as carbon based life coming into existence all by itself.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So yeah, calling it learning might be a stretch, it's a brute force type of computation, that uses the best results to grow from and become "better" (as a function of fitness).

This is in no way new, just using this to do Mario is new. The program actually breaks it down quite simplistically too, each enemy is the same as "bad", doesn't even take into account if enemies fire projectiles, but there is a pattern to the game, and as such a technique like this does work. Jump too soon, the fireballs get you, jump too late you run into the flower, just right... you jump over the fireballs and get further (more fitness) so that string of moves will move on while the other two don't.
Click to expand...

The problem with this method is that it resets everything it learns for each new map instead of carrying over what it 'learned' (enemies = bad = don't touch) into any further maps. It's brute force all the way.
 
cyclone3d said:
The idea is just laughable.
Click to expand...

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

There is current precedence for evolution of cells.

Science can explain how interaction between cells result in the eventual organism. Whether it's one that splits by chance or one that splits in response to contact with another, it's still fundamentally the same.

Unless you're one of those types who believes as soon as a guy spooges into a woman, there's a little kickin' fetus inside the lady. Gotta go through a few weeks of cell division before you can even have anything remotely resembling a fetus.

If 9 months can make a 'miracle', imagine what (by the hilariously myopic christian standard) 6,000 years can bring... or more realistically, 6+ Billion years cause y'know... we see in space beyond that accounting for the speed of light. If this planet, solar system, galaxy and entire universe only existed for 6,000 years because you believe God said so... We couldn't even see the next closest galaxy: Andromeda. (It's 2.5 Million Light Years away)
 
cyclone3d said:
So just adding more and more time makes everything possible?
Click to expand...
Actually it does. Any thing that can happen, will happen, if given enough time. If you give me a few 100 Billion years (assuming I could actually survive that long), I will eventually walk right through the wall I am sitting next to and neither me nor the wall will have any damage.
cyclone3d said:
If that were the case we would still be seeing NEW organisms come into existence.
Click to expand...
We ARE still seeing new organisms come into existence.
cyclone3d said:
The level of complexity in even the simplest of organisms is a statistical impossibility for it to just happen by chance, not to mention then level of complexity in everything lining up just right at a single point in time for something as impossible as carbon based life coming into existence all by itself.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is statically improbable, not statically impossible. Two different things.

cyclone3d, come to the dark side. We have cookies.;)

“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.” ― J. Michael Straczynski
 
Spidey329 said:
What is your counter? That a god created everything? If that is it, what created the god? What's more plausible, that a supreme being just "poofed" into existence or that a single cell organism evolved over billions of years?
Click to expand...

fallacy in your argument. By definition God is uncaused.
you're hanging this on the cause and effect argument but the law of cause and effect is that every effect has a Cause. God is the ultimate cause of everything knowable.

Consider what qualifications a God must meet. God must be beyond physical time, space and matter. If so he is Omnipotent and omnipresent. He must sovereignty control everything . If not he is disqualified.
 
They won't kill us with this.... It has to try a billion times, and killing us is a calculation even tougher than playing Mario. By the time it figures out to even kill a group of people, we'd have scrapped it. Not to mention, it probably won't have enough resource by the time it figures even a group out.

It's really more of a brute force way of learning, keep on repeating with slight changes using the simplest things like, it's moving.
 
cyclone3d said:
I like how he threw in there that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

LOL.

Think about it this way.

1. Matter somehow just comes into existence all by itself from nothing.

2. Somehow that matter organizes itself into such a way that it creates planets, stars, etc.

3. Somehow on what is now knows as Earth, the matter somehow turns into different elements.

4. Somehow it does so in such a perfect way, that Earth can now support carbon based life.

5. Then some matter on Earth somehow turns into amino acids.

6. Then some of those amino acids arrange into such a way that life spontaneously begins.

7. Not only does one organism come to life, but it does it in such a way that it can reproduce.

8. By the whole neural network explanation, this would be impossible to happen on the very first try

9. Taking that into account, a new organism would have to come into existence and by some unfathomable luck be able to reproduce since the "knowledge" of the previous organism would not be passed on.

10. How many times would this have to happen before an organism would actually be able to reproduce the very first try?

11. Now, how many trial/error scenarios would it take for a single cell organism to "evolve" into anything more complex?

The idea is just laughable.
Click to expand...

This is fun. Can't help yourself can you?
 
cyclone3d said:
So just adding more and more time makes everything possible?

If that were the case we would still be seeing NEW organisms come into existence.

The level of complexity in even the simplest of organisms is a statistical impossibility for it to just happen by chance, not to mention then level of complexity in everything lining up just right at a single point in time for something as impossible as carbon based life coming into existence all by itself.
Click to expand...

You already pointed out that you didn't know how matter organizes itself into stars and planets (it's called gravity btw and it happens as we speak) or how different elements are created (by stars and supernovae btw and it happens as we speak).

So you can cross those two things out of your 'mysteries that can only be explained by God'. Also amino acids which are the building blocks of life have been discovered on comets and asteroids. There is nothing statistically impossible about life being created and we're a literal living proof of that.

Religion is a crutch for the feeble minded and a weapon for those who utilize it to control the masses.
 
It's hilarious seeing it took only a few posts to bring up the bible up in the conversation...
 
I don't believe in evolution. A being cannot suddenly change itself into something else. I believe in mutations and survival of the fittest so to speak.

If man "evolved", then why did we stop at what is modern man and not continue on, as there seemed to be quite a lot of earlier versions of what man is now.
 
Evolution is exactly mutation and survival of the fittest of the result that happens over millions if not billions of years.

Known human civilisation is far too short in comparison of the time it takes for evoluation to take its course.

We see mutations very often, but not many of them come out well, it will take a much longer time scale to see perceivable changes due to 'Evolution'.
 
The Super MarI/O Brothers. MarI/O begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to yank the controller.
 
techrat said:
The problem with this method is that it resets everything it learns for each new map instead of carrying over what it 'learned' (enemies = bad = don't touch) into any further maps. It's brute force all the way.
Click to expand...

Does it? I thought it actually did carry over moves, then "evolved" to branch off and do different moves right before death to see which ones work better.
 
Ok I'm going to bail from this thread in a second here but I had to respond to this....
cyclone3d said:
So just adding more and more time makes everything possible?

If that were the case we would still be seeing NEW organisms come into existence.
Click to expand...
Do you know why there are new flu vaccines offered every, single year?

Hint: It's not just because the pharmaceutical industry trying to scam people out of money.

.
 
cyclone3d said:
I like how he threw in there that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

LOL.

Think about it this way.

1. Matter somehow just comes into existence all by itself from nothing.

2. Somehow that matter organizes itself into such a way that it creates planets, stars, etc.

3. Somehow on what is now knows as Earth, the matter somehow turns into different elements.

4. Somehow it does so in such a perfect way, that Earth can now support carbon based life.

5. Then some matter on Earth somehow turns into amino acids.

6. Then some of those amino acids arrange into such a way that life spontaneously begins.

7. Not only does one organism come to life, but it does it in such a way that it can reproduce.

8. By the whole neural network explanation, this would be impossible to happen on the very first try

9. Taking that into account, a new organism would have to come into existence and by some unfathomable luck be able to reproduce since the "knowledge" of the previous organism would not be passed on.

10. How many times would this have to happen before an organism would actually be able to reproduce the very first try?

11. Now, how many trial/error scenarios would it take for a single cell organism to "evolve" into anything more complex?

The idea is just laughable.
Click to expand...

Here we go again.
 
The crusaders sure have evolved. Instead of slaying entire villages of people that wouldn't swear loyalty to the church, now they just pollute hardware enthusiast forums.

I am kind of mad, i have yet to beat the original super mario. I just am not as nimble as I used to be and since back then i sucked, i can only imagine it is worse now lol
 
The programmer took a simple goal-oriented simulation and made a leap between the simulation and cellular evolution. Using fancy names like "species" and "genetics" in place of version numbers and functions make it sound like it's a living thing. This doesn't even compare because the simulation is reacting to an unchanging set of inputs until it develops exactly one set of outputs that achieves the predetermined goal. Let's also not forget that the network is operating in a computer environment, which means things like time, distance, etc, are all going to be digitally precise, whereas living things are and have always been in a constantly changing environment. Inflexible behaviors in nature do not work for that reason, whereas in a computer they are the norm.

Galvin said:
Shouldn't be long before a holy war starts in here :D
Click to expand...

The programmer is partly to blame for using the evolution comparison, but the usual suspects took the troll bait. Arguing over the bible and God vs secularist evolution in a thread like this... sadly, nobody's mature enough to just drop it and let people believe what they'll believe and move on with their lives. They'll just argue and bicker over it until another thread presents a new opportunity, or the thread gets locked. I've tried to appeal to reason in past threads, but the extremists on both sides always just shout everyone else down and the inevitable outcome arrives. Albert Einstein said that if you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result it's a form of insanity. The hardline creationists and evolutionists on this board certainly qualify. I've stopped trying to reason with either because I already know the results, and I see no point in participating in the perpetuation of arrogant stupidity.
 
52 generations in and MarI/O still hasn't figured out that a block or enemy directly in front of you means "jump". Anyone looking for validation of the Theory of Evolution here (besides this being an entirely different model) had best look elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top