5 ms·

If DeepMind is planning on building an AI that can beat the best human SCII player, they have their work cut out for them. I'm not sure how familiar people are

If DeepMind is planning on building an AI that can beat the best human SCII player, they have their work cut out for them. I'm not sure how familiar people are with StarCraft II, but at the highest levels of the game, where player have mastered the mechanics, it's a mind game fueled by deceit, sophisticated and malleable planning, detecting subtle patterns (having a good gut feeling on what's going on) and on the pro scene knowledge of your opponent's style.

cjbprime 10y ago
I agree with you -- this requires first creating the equivalent of a pro poker player, and then adding SC2 mechanics and strategy on top.
fantasticsid 10y ago
I believe the same thing could be said about Go :)
- jdoliner 10y ago
  No the same thing very much could not be said about Go. Go is a perfect information game so by definition it can't involve deception. It's a completely different problem for AIs.
seanwilson 10y ago
> I'm not sure how familiar people are with StarCraft II, but at the highest levels of the game, where player have mastered the mechanics, it's a mind game fueled by deceit, sophisticated and malleable planning, detecting subtle patterns (having a good gut feeling on what's going on) and on the pro scene knowledge of your opponent's style. I wouldn't be surprised if an AI comes along that shows this human perception of what it takes to win isn't required at all. I'm sure similar things were said about Go and Chess.
- andrepd 10y ago
  Both Go and Chess are perfect information games with a (mind bogglingly huge but) vanishingly small number of states/permutations compared to Starcraft. It's an entirely different beast, altogether.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  Similar things weren't really said about Go or Chess. Both are perfect information games so, by definition, they can't involve deceit There's no need to try to detect subtle patterns in your opponents behavior because you have the entire game in front of you. That's not to say it's impossible but they do very much have their work cut out for them. It's an entirely different type of game that is much more difficult than Go and Chess.
  - seanwilson 10y ago
    > Similar things weren't really said about Go or Chess. Both are perfect information games so, by definition, they can't involve deceit I took deceit to mean tricking your opponent into thinking you were doing one thing when you were actually going to do another. You can't do that in Go or Chess? What I generally meant was maybe there's some really boring numerical number crunching or some simple mechanical algorithm that solves games like StarCraft but when humans talk about it, they talk about mind games, deceit, intimidation etc. when maybe these things are irrelevant.
    - skybrian 10y ago
      Deceit boils down to assuming your opponent will misjudge the situation and make a mistake. In Chess or Go, computer players choose the best move assuming that the opponent won't make any mistakes (will never be fooled). There's no attempt to model a weaker opponent. This is why computer players in Go tend to fall apart when they start losing. They don't see a path to victory against a perfect opponent, so all moves look the same. A Go AI that can win from behind (given a handicap) might be an interesting challenge.
      - seanwilson 10y ago
        > In Chess or Go, computer players choose the best move assuming that the opponent won't make any mistakes (will never be fooled). There's no attempt to model a weaker opponent. What I meant was there's no reason an AI couldn't try to fool a human in a perfect information context. For example, you could bait a (probably not world class though) opponent into capturing a piece which puts them in a bad position, where certain baits are more likely to work on humans than others. There's plenty of situations in real life where two people have the same information but one comes out on top because the other overlooked a detail. > This is why computer players in Go tend to fall apart when they start losing. They don't see a path to victory against a perfect opponent, so all moves look the same. Is this not a limitation of the AI though instead of something inherent to AI? > A Go AI that can win from behind (given a handicap) might be an interesting challenge. I'm sure some Go AI are trained doing this.
- pinouchon 10y ago
  Top players go to great lengths to just deny scouting information (for example killing inoffensive hallucinated phoenixes flying their way) just to keep their opponent in the dark.
saghm 10y ago
Isn't it also possible that the strategies employed by top human players (e.g. deceit, having a gut feeling of what the opponent will do) could be less effective or even useless against an AI that doesn't think or act like a human player? Given how human-influenced the meta seems to be (at least, to my understanding), it seems plausible to me that this could be the case
- jdoliner 10y ago
  It's quite possible that AIs will reveal completely new and different types of strategies. It's very unlikely that a concept as broad as deceit is going to be disproven though. I mean just thinking about what that would look like that would mean an AI discovered that it's actually better to show your opponent what you're doing rather than trying to mislead them. I have a hard time believing that could possible be the case.
  - saghm 10y ago
    > It's very unlikely that a concept as broad as deceit is going to be disproven though. I mean just thinking about what that would look like that would mean an AI discovered that it's actually better to show your opponent what you're doing rather than trying to mislead them. I meant it in the other direction; what if top players rely extensively on deceiving each other, but an AI is better able to predict its opponent's strategy than a human an isn't fooled? Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but I don't think it's implausible
aerovistae 10y ago
> it's a mind game fueled by deceit, sophisticated and malleable planning, detecting subtle patterns (having a good gut feeling on what's going on) and on the pro scene knowledge of your opponent's style. The same is true of Go.
- stale2002 10y ago
  It's not really a mind game. A mind game is like Poker. Not games of perfect information.
  - aerovistae 10y ago
    I meant in the sense that you have to anticipate your opponents' intentions and perhaps try to mislead them as to your own. It's different yet similar.
Tinyyy 10y ago
What about scissors paper stone? An AI can be trained to have >50% odds against a human player, given a copious amount of games. Humans have predictable patterns and they can definitely be exploited.
dsjoerg 10y ago
They have their work cut out for them, but not in the way you think. Remember that it's easy for an SC2 AI to beat a human if there are no constraints such as APM. So if and when the AI wins, the humans are going to complain that the constraints weren't set tightly enough. So the contest is going to devolve into a war over the constraints to use, just like the endless bickering between Protoss Terran and Zerg about balancing the units. The best thing DeepMind will be able to say is that they were able to beat Flash (or whoeever) with only 150 APM. But Flash will complain that it wasnt fair because DeepMind was able to be so efficient with those 150 APM so that really it should be limited to 100. I suppose once the APM cap is well below what humans do, then the humans will have to admit a sort of defeat. Hopefully there will be a ladder running where humans can play against the AIs under development and get a feeling for how they play. Will be really fun & interesting!

cjbprime 10y ago

I agree with you -- this requires first creating the equivalent of a pro poker player, and then adding SC2 mechanics and strategy on top.

fantasticsid 10y ago

I believe the same thing could be said about Go :)

jdoliner 10y ago
No the same thing very much could not be said about Go. Go is a perfect information game so by definition it can't involve deception. It's a completely different problem for AIs.

seanwilson 10y ago

> I'm not sure how familiar people are with StarCraft II, but at the highest levels of the game, where player have mastered the mechanics, it's a mind game fueled by deceit, sophisticated and malleable planning, detecting subtle patterns (having a good gut feeling on what's going on) and on the pro scene knowledge of your opponent's style. I wouldn't be surprised if an AI comes along that shows this human perception of what it takes to win isn't required at all. I'm sure similar things were said about Go and Chess.

andrepd 10y ago
Both Go and Chess are perfect information games with a (mind bogglingly huge but) vanishingly small number of states/permutations compared to Starcraft. It's an entirely different beast, altogether.
jdoliner 10y ago
Similar things weren't really said about Go or Chess. Both are perfect information games so, by definition, they can't involve deceit There's no need to try to detect subtle patterns in your opponents behavior because you have the entire game in front of you. That's not to say it's impossible but they do very much have their work cut out for them. It's an entirely different type of game that is much more difficult than Go and Chess.
- seanwilson 10y ago
  > Similar things weren't really said about Go or Chess. Both are perfect information games so, by definition, they can't involve deceit I took deceit to mean tricking your opponent into thinking you were doing one thing when you were actually going to do another. You can't do that in Go or Chess? What I generally meant was maybe there's some really boring numerical number crunching or some simple mechanical algorithm that solves games like StarCraft but when humans talk about it, they talk about mind games, deceit, intimidation etc. when maybe these things are irrelevant.
  - skybrian 10y ago
    Deceit boils down to assuming your opponent will misjudge the situation and make a mistake. In Chess or Go, computer players choose the best move assuming that the opponent won't make any mistakes (will never be fooled). There's no attempt to model a weaker opponent. This is why computer players in Go tend to fall apart when they start losing. They don't see a path to victory against a perfect opponent, so all moves look the same. A Go AI that can win from behind (given a handicap) might be an interesting challenge.
    - seanwilson 10y ago
      > In Chess or Go, computer players choose the best move assuming that the opponent won't make any mistakes (will never be fooled). There's no attempt to model a weaker opponent. What I meant was there's no reason an AI couldn't try to fool a human in a perfect information context. For example, you could bait a (probably not world class though) opponent into capturing a piece which puts them in a bad position, where certain baits are more likely to work on humans than others. There's plenty of situations in real life where two people have the same information but one comes out on top because the other overlooked a detail. > This is why computer players in Go tend to fall apart when they start losing. They don't see a path to victory against a perfect opponent, so all moves look the same. Is this not a limitation of the AI though instead of something inherent to AI? > A Go AI that can win from behind (given a handicap) might be an interesting challenge. I'm sure some Go AI are trained doing this.
pinouchon 10y ago
Top players go to great lengths to just deny scouting information (for example killing inoffensive hallucinated phoenixes flying their way) just to keep their opponent in the dark.

saghm 10y ago

Isn't it also possible that the strategies employed by top human players (e.g. deceit, having a gut feeling of what the opponent will do) could be less effective or even useless against an AI that doesn't think or act like a human player? Given how human-influenced the meta seems to be (at least, to my understanding), it seems plausible to me that this could be the case

jdoliner 10y ago
It's quite possible that AIs will reveal completely new and different types of strategies. It's very unlikely that a concept as broad as deceit is going to be disproven though. I mean just thinking about what that would look like that would mean an AI discovered that it's actually better to show your opponent what you're doing rather than trying to mislead them. I have a hard time believing that could possible be the case.
- saghm 10y ago
  > It's very unlikely that a concept as broad as deceit is going to be disproven though. I mean just thinking about what that would look like that would mean an AI discovered that it's actually better to show your opponent what you're doing rather than trying to mislead them. I meant it in the other direction; what if top players rely extensively on deceiving each other, but an AI is better able to predict its opponent's strategy than a human an isn't fooled? Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but I don't think it's implausible

aerovistae 10y ago

> it's a mind game fueled by deceit, sophisticated and malleable planning, detecting subtle patterns (having a good gut feeling on what's going on) and on the pro scene knowledge of your opponent's style. The same is true of Go.

stale2002 10y ago
It's not really a mind game. A mind game is like Poker. Not games of perfect information.
- aerovistae 10y ago
  I meant in the sense that you have to anticipate your opponents' intentions and perhaps try to mislead them as to your own. It's different yet similar.

Tinyyy 10y ago

What about scissors paper stone? An AI can be trained to have >50% odds against a human player, given a copious amount of games. Humans have predictable patterns and they can definitely be exploited.

dsjoerg 10y ago

They have their work cut out for them, but not in the way you think. Remember that it's easy for an SC2 AI to beat a human if there are no constraints such as APM. So if and when the AI wins, the humans are going to complain that the constraints weren't set tightly enough. So the contest is going to devolve into a war over the constraints to use, just like the endless bickering between Protoss Terran and Zerg about balancing the units. The best thing DeepMind will be able to say is that they were able to beat Flash (or whoeever) with only 150 APM. But Flash will complain that it wasnt fair because DeepMind was able to be so efficient with those 150 APM so that really it should be limited to 100. I suppose once the APM cap is well below what humans do, then the humans will have to admit a sort of defeat. Hopefully there will be a ladder running where humans can play against the AIs under development and get a feeling for how they play. Will be really fun & interesting!