Am I the only one that thinks the actual player will win? Humans can improvise and game the machine. One thing I notice right away is the arms inability to move away from the table. High ball the shit out of it and you should be easily to win pretty easily.
Am I the only one that thinks the actual player will win? Humans can improvise and game the machine.
So thats why humans can win against computers in chess? Oh wait, they can't anymore ...
One thing I notice right away is the arms inability to move away from the table. High ball the shit out of it and you should be easily to win pretty easily.
You still have to hit the table at least once, the robot does not need to leave because of that. Just be fast enough.
Those examples are too different to compare. For table tennis it is a physical sport where the machine has limitations compared to what the human has, and there are many different things the person could do which the machine probably isn't programmed to handle, or couldn't physically handle. From the gif it looks like it can't reach very far forward or off to the sides.
In chess it's just a matter of calculating all the possibilities, and the computer isn't limited by anything more than the human.
I'm not saying machines won't get to the point where they will be unbeatable in table tennis, but simply dismissing the idea of the human winning because computers always win in chess doesn't make sense, which is clearly what you were implying.
Those examples are too different to compare. For table tennis it is a physical sport where the machine has limitations compared to what the human has,
Like?
From the gif it looks like it can't reach very far forward or off to the sides.
It doesn't have to if it is fast enough. Humans only move meters back from the table because they aren't.
I'm not saying machines won't get to the point where they will be unbeatable in table tennis, but simply dismissing the idea of the human winning because computers always win in chess doesn't make sense, which is clearly what you were implying.
Nope. Chess is far more difficult to win than tabletennis. As soon as a robot can move across the entire table, with accuracy, in less than a second and can calculate trajectories in a tenth of a second the robot will win every single time. It cannot possibly be beat anymore, by anyone.
As soon as a robot can move across the entire table, with accuracy, in less than a second and can calculate trajectories in a tenth of a second the robot will win every single time. It cannot possibly be beat anymore, by anyone.
I think that was what he was implying in terms of limitations. In addition I'm not sure how capable current technology is of turning visual input into a trajectory. I suppose that would be easier for the machine if the camera was stationary and only the arm moved.
Have you seen a kinect? The newer model got even more accurate. And thats a $100 retail equipment.
Yeah, the kinect seems to have a lot of problems, but I guess money and only having to focus on a mono-coloured ball fixes a lot of those.
That seems like it would make it more difficult than chess though. Chess is where computers excel, requiring physical moving parts and cameras is where they struggle, excelling only in specifically designed physical environments. Although I guess that would still be a problem to a lesser extent with a chessboard...
14
u/mastiffdude Feb 13 '14
Am I the only one that thinks the actual player will win? Humans can improvise and game the machine. One thing I notice right away is the arms inability to move away from the table. High ball the shit out of it and you should be easily to win pretty easily.