Either way, it's extremely cool.
I notice also that it appears to not be able to move the middles sections, so instead it twists the middle and one side and then twists the side back again - so that adds an extra inefficiency.
EDIT if you look at the first video, the first move the solver makes is not the inverse of the last one the player made, so I'm sure it has its own solver. Also, there are pretty standard solver algorithms (I've never looked them up because I don't want to spoil the game for myself but I have a really inefficient one I've figured out myself).
For finding a solution by computer, it has the advantage of being almost completely a rote application of algorithms.
Kinda feel like this is a pretty good example of how solutions to problems can be counterintuitive to people.
I imagine theres some protocol to tell the controller the cube is solved (e.g. only turn it on in a solved state) and it just tracks moves from there to determine the current state.
- first human shuffle move was rotate around white side
- last cube movement was rotation around green side
Ergo the cube did not just follow the same steps in reverse order
Solving the cube with a computer is a solved problem for a long time and there are myriads of algorithms. Granted the solutions are not perfect (i.e. using the minimum number of steps needed which is always <= 20), but mostly come close (~25 steps).
It's one thing to have an object that violates expectations by taking action that an outwardly similar object does not. It's a surprise move that turns the tables on the person interacting with the object. (You could almost view it as a threat or a power dynamic thing.)
Having those actions be as intelligent as possible raises this surprise to another level. If I fiddled with it for 5 minutes and it put it back in 30 seconds, I'd feel even more like I just got owned by the object.
From the video it looks like a solver algorithm by the way, and not going for least amount of movements either, it seems to move much more during the solve than the movements the person did. To save battery they should go for optimal amount of moves!
The C++ snippet includes permutations for the Fridrich method's first two layers (F2L), which wouldn't be required for a reverse-replay.
It was “solved” with 56 moves.
Seems like a solve algo to me.
Stranger still, it might turn out that the cube decides that it's fine the way it already is and it doesn't need to conform to a "right" configuration based on our expectations. In which case; perhaps we're already invented what you're looking for?