Thread

1. criemen · 1790435711 · focus · HN ↗

   A German magazine (c't) ran a Asteroids programming contest in 2008 - create a client with access to the emulator output of the game that provides keyboard inputs to control the game.

   The highest scoring submission that won the contest had a high score of around 137k. Last week, I had GPT-6 Astra, Sol and Luna implement and hill-climb on this task, as I wanted to see how big the difference in smartness is. Luna implemented something, but never exceeded ca. 20k points, with a large variance. Sol got something in the area of the humans implementation.

   Astra, which finished fastest, had a highscore of around 1.7Mm when the game seemed to fairly reliably crash. On the way, it disassembled parts of the ROM to extract information about the game.

   I didn't do a ton work to document and measure the specifics, but it was very impressive.

   1. looperhacks · 1790437797 · focus · HN ↗

      If I remember correctly, back then all "good" entries in the contest solved the game by syncing with the RNG and could basically predict where and how new asteroids would spawn. The difference between entries was planning ahead movement and residence against control issues due to the contest setup (like inputs getting delayed). I wonder how Astra managed so much better, I thought the problem was already solved

      1. criemen · 1790440399 · focus · HN ↗

         Thanks! I went back, and had a look at both the contest rules and the highest scoring submission again. Turns out I benchmarked against infinite games, whereas the contest measured a 5min time limit. So, Astra solved a different problem.

         Comparing strategies, though, Astra does something pretty different from the highest scoring submission. It doesn't predict the RNG, instead it reacts to the visuals on-screen, planning ahead by estimating velocity of all objects on screen. Unlike the winning solution, it actively flies the ship, whereas the winning solution basically only rotates and teleports. So Astra behaves more like a regular "perfect" player would, rather than one that breaks the PRNG.

         1. suddenlybananas · 1790445335 · focus · HN ↗

            It is a bit frustrating that you reported it as being so much better than human made solutions despite not checking even the most basic conditions.

            1. criemen · 1790445599 · focus · HN ↗

               My apologies, and it's too late to edit the parent now.

               To be fair, though, I mainly ran this experiment to distinguish models, not to see if they were better than humans or not, so for that purpose it didn't really matter if the basic conditions were the same or not.

   2. NitpickLawyer · 1790443264 · focus · HN ↗

      > On the way, it disassembled parts of the ROM

      You should check the logs, there's probably a bunch of retro gaming forums that got hacked behind the scenes :D

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.