Penapenis you had determination no hate here

:o

I request a 300x200 grid with 20,000 bombs lol

Then won't only 2⁄3 of the spaces be good, and therefore the algorithm would fail most of the time?

it was 128x68... are you sure you counted right?

imgur.com/a/PltFdMu i imagine it could look something like this... it took my computer 5 seconds to solve the field. to be fair, i had to tell him to only open safe clicks, else it still would search. also what am i doing here

Yes please. And dont use a grid just colorcode all the possible stats (undiscovered, discovered, marked, 1-8, bomb) so the result is just a FullHD image with colores!

what is that? your screen resolution?

@@febrezeninja745 well mine is 1900x1200 so uhh wait where did everyone go?

f yee

Wouldn’t that be fixed with the rule he implemented at the end?

@@peepock7796 Maybe? We don't know how exactly he computes which squares are more likely to have bombs. If it's pure brute force then I guess it would always work.

@@NXTangl There is no way, for a human or an AI to ALWAYS win. Even in smaller configuration with only a few mines it's possible that they form an island where you don't know how the interior might look like. A common scenario you can think about is a 3x4 area that has mines at the perimeter (10 mines) so the middle 2 squares are unknown. Imagine you're only missing one mine. So you have a 50:50 chance since there is no way to know or determine which of the two unrevealed squares contains the mine. In larger grids with more mines this can happen even more frequently. Having 2 configurations of 3x3 (8 mines surrounding one square) it's also impossible to tell which of the remaining unknown center squares have a mine. The only way here is brute force. Of course you should keep those undecidable squares for the end as this could help to figure it out. Maybe all those undecidable squares should be mines in which case we know all of them, or they should all not contain any mines because you already found all. However any case in between requires guessing There are more cases than the two I mentioned which are undecidable.Though it usually boils down to some variation those cases (apart from even larger cases where a 2x2 area is enclosed by mines). Note that when two unknow squares are surrounded by mines, it also doesn't help when the perimenter has holes at the long sides. because if there's only one mine in there you don't know which one. In the end the game is a gambling game since the distribution of mines is random. Yes the original minesweeper ensured that the first click is never a mine, but that was the only adaptive part of the game. The grid is either filled with mines after the first click, or if the first click would hit a mine we can swap the mine with any free square during the click. As far as i know he actually considers all information available and actually does a probability distribution between undecidable squares and picks the one that has the least likely chance to contain a mine. Of course all decidable squares have naturally a 0% chance. Have you actually seen the first video? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ma2Fe8iZq63Vcpc.html

​@@Bunny99s Well, there were definitely grids that the AI gave up on which had squares that are easily determined to not contain a mine, so it demonstrably does not consider all information available.

@@joeo3377 Well that is hard to tell from the video as there are something like 3 to 6 actions per frame. Yes I found some edge cases (specifically involving 3s and 2s) where it seems that it has not considered them properly as "linked cells". Though as I said it's actually hard to tell as in most cases you don't even see the "failed" configuration as too many steps are missing in between frames. Currently I don't have the time nor do I want check the code as it's quite a mess to follow the logic ^^. However if you think you can spot the issue, feel free to have a look: github.com/Code-Bullet/minesweeper-AI/tree/master/minesweeperAI

Cool Idea! I really want to see this!

Combativ until you die?

I HAVE DONE THAT... i just havent enabled the bot on my infinite minesweeper version zikoat.github.io/ , i can enable it if you want

The Computer Would Crash *(Obviously)*

WaZe or you could hack into a supercomputer and run the simulation there at hyperspeed :D

A simpler example is the 2x4 grid B3B? / ????, with a total of four bombs. Guessing one of the two right-side squares has a 50% chance of instant kaboom, but reveals enough information to win otherwise. Guessing one of the three other squares will have only a 1/3 chance of instant kaboom, but won't reveal enough information to win without taking another 50% chance.

Click the first « ? »

@Flat Finger Tuning. Great example.

if im right its between the top right and middle right, im going to guess top right of the four mines two are among the bottom three squares, leaving two mines for the remaining six squares. one is adjacent to the 4 on top, leaving one mine between the middle row and top right

Thank you

1200 lines of code for a decent Minecraft bot!? I could solve the universe with 1200 lines of code.

@@dannygjk but that will take 7 and a half million years, and the answer will be 42

I myself hoped for bytes, but your idea is great as well

@@youpviver6773 especially if it's only some kilobytes.

@@robertlinke2666 Wasn't it 10 million years?

Mugem would be the best option. Imagine saltybet with learning ai.

AIs that learn by using evolution technically already do that. Hundreds of players are created, and the one that does the best "wins" (or is the one to evolve). But, I do see what you mean, that is a good idea :P

I'm sure he's thought about it but he's then shrugged the idea off because it was a bad idea because being AI's if they're programmed the exact same way (except one is to use another character or thing) then they'd just end up with the same results

he already did this with chess

AI 1: starts the nukes towards Russia, knowing the counter strike will obliterate its opponent AI 2.

I did the exact same thing.

yeah you can't tell me that a "perfect" algorithm would need like 10 attempts to solve that...

THANKS!!! I cringed watching this guy have no clue and proudly letting the world know he has no clue...

There can be no perfect algorithm for a luck based game.

But you can perfectly calculate the best possible chance. If you've perfected all the perfectible bits, are you not as perfect as perfect can be?

brillant IDEA !

that would actually not be that hard to code because of the simple rules of UNO, but what would be hard is everything that a highly intelligent mathematical genius would be able to do - calculating the probabilities of people having certain cards, and utilising this knowledge to be able to statistically win more games than anyone.

I thought the first click on Minesweeper couldn't be a bomb?

@@EGarrett01 Yes, in the original Minesweeper; it generated a board. But if you clicked on a bomb, it would regenerate the boards until there no longer was a bomb there. Newer Minesweepers might be more effective (like just moving the mine).

Huh

Haha puny human.

So my vacuum will take over the world one day.

Well, yes. If all forms of AI are inevitably going to take over the world, as many like to believe, then your roomba is destined to be your future overlord.

Neural Networks are a form of AI, It tries, fails, replicas the most successful and attempts again. What do you think our brains do? It fails, then tries again and whenever it works, it retains that connection/method and builds off that. Self learning, so sure this programs not about to figure out self automation and take over the world, but its a self learning algorithm that can be applied to literally everything and has been. From Healthcare to games, its doing a much better job than Humans in a lot of examples. Like diagnosing people, we give it all the information and 90% of the time its diagnoses is correct. AI? Sure it is, AI is pretty Broad. Even "Siri" is considered AI but in reality its just a program that recognizes the input and outputs the most relevant information. But again, thats all we do isn't it? We take the input and then output a response.

Neural Network algorithms are most definitely a form of AI. Nobody here was claiming otherwise.

It doesn't apply to any computer program, if they are not autonomous. It's the difference of a remote controlled vacuum and one that periodically goes around your house for you. A remote controlled one waits until it receives a signal to move. The latter one follows an algorithm that maps out your floor automatically. But the latter one does not need to use neural networking to do so. There are vastly more efficient methods to do so.

Season 12: The Dark Ages

I know this is an old comment, but if you're still interested in this type of thing, there are communities that regularly program AI for multi-player online games and pit them against each other. One of them is a channel on twitch.tv SSCAIT (Starcraft student AI tournament) which is continuously playing Starcraft: Brood War games against fellow AI's, 24/7. These are generally NOT self learning bots, but people update their bots every week or so, and they're always improving.

This is some movie crap.

I was wondering about this one, there was no real display of the fail points... I hate slowing down something accelerated. I guessed there were easy fails in this so called hard coded candy.

@@PandemoniumMeltDown i dont think the footage is accelerated. the ai is playing so fast =b

That means its realistic A.I. to his definition lol

syke?

SKYE

Pretty sure he meant "psych".

SYKE THAT'S THE WRONG NUMBER!

*_SKYE_* TO KO KO KO PO POM POM POM

illesizs do you have it all ready?

Yes

Yeah us Ugandans need to stick together.

NewtSniper Uganda is dead.

Astroxeon Różnie bywa ;D

Elo Polska

Ruski yes?

NeedyZ thanks!

Artificial intelligence...

@@alextsukada4013 you did not get it did you...? It is about the ever going conflict of what is ab AI vs what is an Algorithm...

Overlord Alfredo ah I see, just needed some clarification. Thanks

An algorithm is a math problem in harder to learn word. Also if that were to be true we would be AI too.

Check his last video for explanation.

The explanation is that P(bomb|tile) = Number of possible arrangements of bombs in which the tile contains a bomb / number of possible arrangements of bombs An arrangement is impossible if it violates a number tile.

Yeah, well I guess I wasn't clear enough. That simple probability is easy to think of, but that would be wildly inefficient, and can't be the way that he did it.

Sometimes brute force is fast enough.

rosen. Nope. Minesweeper is NP-Complete. So bruteforce is the only known way to go for perfect play. You're underestimating modern hardware a bit. Only caveat is that I'd imagine for speed you'd want to be using a GPU to check all the combinations, maybe write that part of the code CUDA or whatever. Small edit: Oh... and of course you can use simpler rules for finding 100% safe/bomb spots. So check them first for obvious safe/bomb spots, then brute force when necessary.

You are more likely to hit a 0 so you uncover multiple squares. I pointed it out in the comments in the previous video. Weird that he didn't mention it. link explaining further. www.minesweeper.info/wiki/Strategy#First_Click

I guess it's probably because at the beginning all squares have the same chance of being a mine so the programm just starts with the first one in the array ([0][0])

why would you be more likely to hit a zero in the corners? Imo it's just to keep the code simple

I have played a lot of minesweepers, and the main reason I always start in the corner is that the corner is the place where might get a 50/50 chance and have to guess, which could mean that I might lose all the hard work I have done throughout the game. If I just start in the corner first, then I don't have to deal with this choice at the end.

ah okay I never thought of that but I'm still not sure if it's intentional since he never mentioned it

It is a simple program - no AI involved, and ye,s you are absolutely correct - it can be improved as it does not consider what choice leads to a better outcome in the long term: before it would take a single 50% chance to lose it would take a 49% chance hundreds of times in a row considerably lowering its chances in scenarios where it has to rely on chance.

Huh, I didn't consider that. I was just thinking that in situations where you have multiple choices with the same probability, deciding which is strategically the best seems awfully difficult. But you're right, it also seems plausible that in the long run there may be instances where the best move (The one most likely to lead to a winning game) isn't one with the lowest odds of you losing that turn. Like if you have a choice between say, a 50% loss square that gives you allot of information for later turns, vs a 49.99% loss square that will give you little information.

There is some technical words that easy to confuse here. AI : Artificial intelligence - software that show intelligence like people do. So hard code is still count as AI Self learning AI : Basically and AI that can improve it self. Self learning AI make for something programmer don't have concept to hard code. By leaning to statistics. Newron network AI : one type of Self learning AI design. Self learning AI will take more processing power it may better than this logic base AI at finish the game. But because it will take much more processing power it will not run as fast.

@@put4558350 thanks, it's not easy for a stranger to understand every single word. It helped me 👍

Buster McGhee what if we could just make you cure cancer..... :)

A lot of people will have to die, though...

Because it's easier and faster for him to build in the AI into the game, that can read the data directly from the game, and do inputs directly into it. Still, the AI is not cheating, because it can't read data it isn't given. - Having the AI play games that he hasn't built requires screen reading, and/or memory scanning, which is a much slower process. This is not good if he's going to run 500 entities playing the game, or games requiring more direct and exact input. It also requires analyzing the data, and there can be errors in that too. - The best videos he done on this topic are the ones about Pong and Storm The House, where he actually use screen reading.

Aakash Gandhi - Viking

Neural networks are great for pattern recognition and has been improving image sorting algorithms immensely. But it's not a cure all for everything. For example, A* search is a much better alternative, if your problem is about path finding.

Just skimmed through A* on wikipedia, seems similar to Dijkstra's (as it says on the page), which I used on a homework assignment last semester for a computer science. I would agree that a neural network would certainly perform much less efficiently than this algorithm. I'm guessing the major advantage over Dijkstra's is the heuristic step? That would allow the algorithm to aim the path towards the goal rather than radially expanding outward.

That's correct. How far are you into computer science? I'm sorta surprised that you've been introduced to Dijkstra without your instructors mentioning A*.

I'm currently about to finish my third semester in the program (I'm a semester behind as I started in Physics and added the dual major). The class I was taking was data structures, and the assignment was tied to the directed graph data structure (we had a choice between adjacency matrices and using pointers, can't remember which I used). I'm currently in an algorithms class and a theory class (I really enjoyed going from regular expression to minimum state DFSA's).

He most likely made it, just like with all his other games.

Thing is there is no real way to apply the ai to another running program cause the capabilities of Processing don't support that and if there is a way it is still simpler just to reprogram these simple games

Lord of Pixels incorrect, you can use a language like c++ to read memory

processing has the robot class that can take a screenshot and click, and you can determine which number of bombs there is by the color of the number, So it's pretty easy to implement a function to take a screenshot and spit back an array with the number of bombs. Though, when doing an AI you are often remaking most of the engine anyway, so it's not a lot more work to put a gui on it.

my comment started a conversation

Also, for the people who say that learning is necessary... one could argue that this system is learning more about the mines over the course of a game. As it clicks, it obtains new information, and based on that information, it updates the probabilities it assigns to different things. This could be said to be learning?

I wasn't able to find the song, but the song did remind me/sound similar to: John Dreamer - Becoming a Legend John Dreamer - Brotherhood

Aakash Gandhi - Viking

sorry i forgot

Three*

😐

i.etsystatic.com/11242699/r/il/d0d829/1892086115/il_570xN.1892086115_c5v6.jpg

Lol

6:59

Uh.... False. Personally speaking I've lost on turn 1 several times.

Umm if all the tiles are blank and you don’t know where the bombs are... how are you supposed to know the best place to click to open a space?

Most Minesweeper games guarantee, that you don't loose turn one, however depending on the difficulty it is all but granted, that you'll get an open square at your first click, I usually play with so many mines, that I have like a 25-50% chance to hit a mine, if I just click randomly xD

Some Weeb you're right that neural networks aren't the only kind of AI. However, pathfinding in video games is not AI because they operate based on an algorithm that devises the perfect path to take, such as A*. It would be AI if it were able to continuously adjust the algorithm it used to get a more optimal outcome each time.

Exactly - these kind of links must be done to be able to beat best human players. 20y ago on fairly low level C-programming course we had task to write algorithm-based minesweep solver (communicated via stdin to mineserver and if you guessed and opened a mine you got rejected) where I did this kind of chains like dual-1's are stating there is one mine, so another 1 is telling it's adjacent square does not have mine. And -20y of Moore's law our algorithm were solving large minesweeper fields sub-second timeframe (we were competing with speed and how much you can solve). So video poster's current AI evolution is really not that impressive. Also where to start board? By minesweeper definition your first guess is always guaranteed not to contain mine. So you get coordinates of first guess, initialize board so that there is no mine and tell result. Problem is that if square reveals "1" and you have 9 unknowns around it you must guess. But on above programming course it was forbitten to guess so that "1" was the solution.

This comment deserves more recognition. Great catch! It seemed suspicious that this supposed brute-force program is so fast.

In almost all real boards, you can count the number of combinations without iterating through all of them; but you have to do it in a clever way. Consider unrevealed tiles "constrained" if there is a revealed number in their neighbourhood, and "unconstrained" otherwise; let n be the number of unconstrained tiles, and m be the number of mines whose positions are not known. Then if there are k mines in the constrained tiles, there are (n choose (m-k)) combinations of where the remaining m-k mines can be. To count how many combinations have a mine at each constrained tile: - let constrained be a dictionary mapping constrained tiles to 0 (initially) - let unconstrained be a dictionary mapping integers from 0..m to 0 (initially) - let total = 0 # total valid combinations - for each k: - - for each valid combination of k mines in the constrained tiles: - - - let c = (n choose (m-k)) - - - update unconstrained[k] += c - - - update total += c - - - for each tile p where a mine exists in this combination: - - - - update constrained[p] += c Then, the probability that constrained tile p contains a mine is constrained[p] / total. The probability that an unconstrained tile contains a mine is (1/(n*total)) * sum from k = 0 to m of (m-k)*unconstrained[k]. Even iterating through all combinations of k mines in the constrained tiles is unnecessary, since we only need to generate valid ones, this can be done with a backtracking search rather than by generating all and rejecting invalid ones. If you're even cleverer, you can split the constrained tiles into independent sets which share no local constraints. So, I have no doubt that an algorithm can follow the strategy outlined in the previous video efficiently enough for these board sizes, although given the errors Timothy noted, I suspect CodeBullet's algorithm doesn't really follow this strategy exactly - perhaps it estimates the probabilities by a Monte Carlo method instead, or perhaps it is just buggy.

And the algorithm does not look forward. That is needed because of this situation. Imagine that it has to take a risk, you can choose between a small and a big risk. If it takes the small one, it still has to take the bigger one, but if it takes the bigger one first it will get enough information not to have to take the bigger one. The AI will go for the smallest risk, but that is not going to help it. This situation is a bit hypothetical but it does illustrate how anticipating possible outcomes is an essential part of a perfect AI. The only way I could think of to solve this is make the AI calculate literally every possible game of minesweeper (you could eliminate some possibilities, but the number of games the AI would have to consider would still be astronomically high). It is probably infeasible to do this with nowadays' computers, the same way the perfect chess AI does not exist.

But most of the time there is a definitely-safe move requiring no look-ahead, so on reasonable difficulty settings a complete game doesn't require very many guesses in total - the search tree is not very deep. Also, you don't need to play out games all the way to the end if you know they already took more risk than another variation did; and deeper branches mean more guesses, usually meaning more total risk, so you're more likely to be able to prune the parts of the search tree that are deep. I think a branch-and-bound algorithm, combined with an optimised probability-measurement algorithm (like I described above), would be feasible.

Hejka

Kamil to mistrz sapera kozaq

Dewgang_47 Nope. An acronym is an abbreviation which can be pronounced as if it were a word, like NASA and AIDS.

A process heavy screensaver, but sure