Turing Test passed by UT2k4 bots Sept. 2012

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Synastren

Explodious!
Jun 22, 2001
2,417
0
0
36
KU
Welp, turns out that UT made a significant contribution to computer science.

An artificially intelligent virtual gamer created by computer scientists at The University of Texas at Austin has won the BotPrize by convincing a panel of judges that it was more human-like than half the humans it competed against.

The competition was sponsored by 2K Games and was set inside the virtual world of “Unreal Tournament 2004,” a first-person shooter video game.

“The idea is to evaluate how we can make game bots, which are nonplayer characters (NPCs) controlled by AI algorithms, appear as human as possible,” said Risto Miikkulainen, professor of computer science in the College of Natural Sciences. Miikkulainen created the bot, called the UT^2 game bot, with doctoral students Jacob Schrum and Igor Karpov.

The bots face off in a tournament against one another and about an equal number of humans, with each player trying to score points by eliminating its opponents. Each player also has a “judging gun” in addition to its usual complement of weapons. That gun is used to tag opponents as human or bot.

The bot that is scored as most human-like by the human judges is named the winner. UT^2, which won a warm-up competition last month, shared the honors with MirrorBot, which was programmed by Romanian computer scientist Mihai Polceanu.

The winning bots both achieved a humanness rating of 52%. Human players received an average humanness rating of only 40%. The two winning teams will split the $7,000 first prize.

The victory comes 100 years after the birth of mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing, whose “Turing test” stands as one of the foundational definitions of what constitutes true machine intelligence. Turing argued that we will never be able to see inside a machine’s hypothetical consciousness, so the best measure of machine sentience is whether it can fool us into believing it is human.

“When this ‘Turing test for game bots’ competition was started, the goal was 50 percent humanness,” said Miikkulainen. “It took us five years to get there, but that level was finally reached last week, and it’s not a fluke.”

The complex gameplay and 3-D environments of “Unreal Tournament 2004” require that bots mimic humans in a number of ways, including moving around in 3-D space, engaging in chaotic combat against multiple opponents and reasoning about the best strategy at any given point in the game. Even displays of distinctively human irrational behavior can, in some cases, be emulated.

“People tend to tenaciously pursue specific opponents without regard for optimality,” said Schrum. “When humans have a grudge, they’ll chase after an enemy even when it’s not in their interests. We can mimic that behavior.”

In order to most convincingly mimic as much of the range of human behavior as possible, the team takes a two-pronged approach. Some behavior is modeled directly on previously observed human behavior, while the central battle behaviors are developed through a process called neuroevolution, which runs artificially intelligent neural networks through a survival-of-the-fittest gauntlet that is modeled on the biological process of evolution.

“In the case of the BotPrize,” said Schrum, “a great deal of the challenge is in defining what 'human-like' is, and then setting constraints upon the neural networks so that they evolve toward that behavior.

“If we just set the goal as eliminating one’s enemies, a bot will evolve toward having perfect aim, which is not very human-like. So we impose constraints on the bot’s aim, such that rapid movements and long distances decrease accuracy. By evolving for good performance under such behavioral constraints, the bot’s skill is optimized within human limitations, resulting in behavior that is good but still human-like.”

Miikkulainen said that methods developed for the BotPrize competition should eventually be useful not just in developing games that are more entertaining, but also in creating virtual training environments that are more realistic, and even in building robots that interact with humans in more pleasant and effective ways.

Link to story: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/09/I...y-intelligent-game-bots-pass-the-Turing-test/
 

gopostal

Active Member
Jan 19, 2006
848
47
28
I don't think this is in the spirit of the Turing test and here's my reasoning:

The bot decision tree is fairly simple, most choices are 2-D anyway. What the programmers have done is attempt to mimic player choices instead of making the bot 'think' like a player. In essence they are giving people what they want to see.

Our dogs are a lot like that. People humanize them and then see all sorts of 'human' behavior in them (my dog LOVES me!) when very often the dog is giving the behavior that rewards it most. I see this all the time on the mail route. I give my dogs treats from time to time and they respond by running towards my truck, tail wagging, some 'grinning' as they can often do, showing every inclination that they are just fired up to see me (Where have you been, I've been sitting here all day for you!). If I don't treat them and pull away then instantly and 100% percent of the time the behavior stops and they go on sniffing their ass or whatever it was they were doing before seeing me. There is no grief at losing a treat or anger at being denied. If you 'humanize' your dog you see him begging for a treat from a dear friend but as a realist I see a dog showing a learned behavior that often provides him a reward. This behavior can be stopped or started without vestige of emotion on his part, it's we as humans that add that entire facet.

I think the same thing is at work here with these bots. They 'show' player behavior but there is no thinking along the lines of a human player, no 'emotion', just a series of appear-like-a-human decision trees.

Still I think the presentation is a pretty cool one, it's just not Turing test stuff. It's just good bot programming. Hell Higor has been doing this a while at UT99.org and few people really got behind him. He made some pretty cool AI advancements with very little work.
 
Last edited:

Synastren

Explodious!
Jun 22, 2001
2,417
0
0
36
KU
It should be pointed out that the Turing test traditionally requires that a computer engage in conversation with a person in such a way that it is indistinguishable from another person. In other words, a computer has to be able to talk like a human so well that a person doesn't know that they're talking to a computer.

This is a (simpler) variation of that test; it is easier to create a program to mimic human behaviors concerning movement and such. Language is a terribly tricky beast (that's why there are 3+ disciplines looking at language at a a given time).

Still, this represents a unique achievement: there was a computer program that simulated human behavior to such an extent that it was thought of as another person--just in a relatively simple scenario.

On the other hand, the Turing test says nothing about whether the AI is actually intelligent (maybe sapient would be a better word), though that really has no bearing on this particular situation.
 

xMurphyx

New Member
Jun 2, 2008
1,502
0
0
liandri.darkbb.com
The winning bots both achieved a humanness rating of 52%. Human players received an average humanness rating of only 40%.
"More human than human - that is our motto."

But doesn't this mean the "humanness rating" is fundamentally flawed? *confused*
 

gopostal

Active Member
Jan 19, 2006
848
47
28
Yeah Murphy, that's my point exactly. You can't measure subjectivity like that. Still I'm pumped for the advancement, it's just the whole thing is framed wrong.
 

Manticore

Official BUF Angel of Death (also Birthdays)
Staff member
Nov 5, 2003
6,379
231
63
Optimum Trajectory-Circus of Values
"More human than human - that is our motto."

But doesn't this mean the "humanness rating" is fundamentally flawed? *confused*
Probably; but it's a good song anyway. :)

blade-runner-opening1.jpg
 
Last edited:
"More human than human - that is our motto."

But doesn't this mean the "humanness rating" is fundamentally flawed? *confused*

I was thinking the same thing.

Maybe it has something to do with the arrogance of the judges. they very likely assumed the slower deciding, ho hum performance came from bots all too often when it was in fact coming from non-computer game enthusiast humans.

I say this stuff all the time in Left 4 Dead 2. "omg you're so bad, are you sure you're not a bot?"
"You know if it wasn't for the friendly fire, I'd almost swear I'm alone on this team.."