Metaculus Help: Spread the word
If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.
Will AI defeat human in the 2017 Angry Birds challenge?
partnered with Center for the Study of Existential Risk, Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and The Future of Life Institute
Angry Birds is a game requiring prediction of the physics-based effects of different-property flying-impaired projectiles on various porcine-sourced structures. This includes aiming the birds, using their varied properties, and using explosions and other effects.
Video games comprise an interesting arena for the training and testing of AI and machine learning (ML) systems. Game-playing AI systems have been steadily advancing both in highly ruled-based (but difficult!) games like Chess and Go, and videogames in which the AI system is just given the same input and output stream as a human player and must analyze the video.
For several years, an Angry Birds AI competition has been held to evaluate and encourage game-playing ML systems to play Angry Birds. In this competition the entrants are provided "a basic game playing software that includes a computer vision module, a trajectory planning module, and the game interface that works with the Chrome version of Angry Birds."
Part of the competition is an Man vs Machine Challenge, pitting the best ML systems against highly skilled humans.
In the 2016 competition, the human and AI players competed on four levels over the course of 10 minutes. Although some AIs completed four levels, none completed all four (some humans did, albeit with difficulty.) The best human players ended with approximately double the best AI scores. This is actually a bit less good than a followup to the 2015 challenge in which an AI came within a factor of 2/3 of the best human scores.
With rapid progress in AI, it is possible that the 2017 challenge will go differently, so we ask:
Will the top AI score in the 2017 Angry Birds Man vs Machine Challenge outscore the top human?
Result concerns only the official challenge (not a followup held as in 2015), and is contingent on such a challenge being held (i.e. the question resolves as ambiguous if there is no competition.)
Metaculus help: Predicting
Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.
The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.
The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.
This question is not yet open for predictions.
Metaculus help: Community Stats
Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.
When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.