3 ms·

What "somerandomness" what pointing out is that nobody in this thread seems to have actually clicked on the link. DeepMind's article clearly states that they wo

What "somerandomness" what pointing out is that nobody in this thread seems to have actually clicked on the link. DeepMind's article clearly states that they would limit the number of actions per minute (traditionally referred to as APM in esports) taken by their AI, yet people are still saying that this wouldn't be impressive because the machine has an unlimited number of actions.

tempestn 10y ago
My post (the grandparent to yours) fully acknowledges that. However, there are many different things that count as an action in starcraft, and even with a cap on APM, there will be many ways for a computer to pack in more useful actions than a human. Also a computer will have other innate advantages, like perfect timing and map awareness. An equally skilled human will therefore need stronger strategy to make up for these disadvantages. Your parent post appears to suggest mitigating these other advantages in various ways (although I don't personally agree with that approach, since the computer isn't doing something that's out of reach for humans, just things that aren't practical for humans to achieve consistently). If you did NOT limit APM, it wouldn't even be a contest. The AI could simply mass first tier units and crush any human opponent with micro.
- halflings 10y ago
  I do not understand the point of an AI if you want it to be equal in all ways to a human. Why not just fight a human? The goal is to build an AI that is at least as good as pro players (which would involve building models and technology capable of taking complex decisions etc.). The goal was never to implement something that is strictly equal to a human. You cannot blame the AI for having a better memory and perfect timing, or next thing you know you'll ask them to limit the RAM to something comparable to the memory in a human brain and use older processors to restrict the unfair advantage current computation clusters have. Regarding your last point: even without limiting APM, there is no AI that can currently compete with decent players . If it was as easy as you say, people would've done that with Broodwar which has open APIs. The fact is that micro alone cannot win a StarCraft game. Perfectly micro-ed zerglings cannot do much against a terran turtling behind a closed wall and shooting with marines, or a protoss with immortals and adepts.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    I agree with you. As I said, > Your parent post appears to suggest mitigating these other advantages in various ways (although I don't personally agree with that approach, since the computer isn't doing something that's out of reach for humans, just things that aren't practical for humans to achieve consistently). As far as your last paragraph, I suspect the issue is that people building AIs generally try to follow the spirit of the game. I believe it would be possible write an AI that wins by perfectly macroing out tier-1 units, rushing, and perfectly microing them (and obviously it would be much easier than to build a more general Starcraft AI). If it hasn't been done, I expect that's because it would be little more than a gimmick. It certainly wouldn't be any fun to play against, nor would it advance AI in general.
    - halflings 10y ago
      I don't think it's as easy as that. Even with perfect macro + micro, your opponent could simply scout you, see what build you're going for, and counter your build. Pro players do have (quasi-)perfect macro: They build units and buildings exactly when they should be built (especially at the early stages of the game). They also have an excellent micro. What makes one player win against the other is often the choices they make (going for a surprising build, or simply executing an attack in a way their opponent wouldn't be ready for). So I'm pretty sure an AI that would just mass zerglings and micro them "perfectly" still would be crushed by decent players that know how to counter that rush. (build a wall, and have siege tanks or a similar unit)
      - ethbro 10y ago
        This is one thing that I think would be fascinating when (if) we get to a competitive AI in this arena. Do we eventually see the hypothetical human (or AI!) opponent trying to metagame against the way an AI system interacts with the game? E.g. human-pointless feints in an attempt to pollute AI logic? Under the premise that a competitive AI will reason and act differently than a competitive human (due to aforementioned difference in speed/memory vs abstract thinking resources).
      - 10y ago
YokoZar 10y ago
Clicking the same button twice in a row in rapid succession is much easier for a human to do than clicking two small buttons on different parts of the screen. A naive counter of "actions per minute" would count both things as exactly the same number of actions. Whenever the harder action is better than the simpler one, the AI would gain an intrinsic advantage even though it's limited to the same number of APM.
- otempomores 10y ago
  Player attention as a ressource modeling. Ai will abandon battles that are no longer cost efficient much earlier

tempestn 10y ago

My post (the grandparent to yours) fully acknowledges that. However, there are many different things that count as an action in starcraft, and even with a cap on APM, there will be many ways for a computer to pack in more useful actions than a human. Also a computer will have other innate advantages, like perfect timing and map awareness. An equally skilled human will therefore need stronger strategy to make up for these disadvantages. Your parent post appears to suggest mitigating these other advantages in various ways (although I don't personally agree with that approach, since the computer isn't doing something that's out of reach for humans, just things that aren't practical for humans to achieve consistently). If you did NOT limit APM, it wouldn't even be a contest. The AI could simply mass first tier units and crush any human opponent with micro.

halflings 10y ago
I do not understand the point of an AI if you want it to be equal in all ways to a human. Why not just fight a human? The goal is to build an AI that is at least as good as pro players (which would involve building models and technology capable of taking complex decisions etc.). The goal was never to implement something that is strictly equal to a human. You cannot blame the AI for having a better memory and perfect timing, or next thing you know you'll ask them to limit the RAM to something comparable to the memory in a human brain and use older processors to restrict the unfair advantage current computation clusters have. Regarding your last point: even without limiting APM, there is no AI that can currently compete with decent players . If it was as easy as you say, people would've done that with Broodwar which has open APIs. The fact is that micro alone cannot win a StarCraft game. Perfectly micro-ed zerglings cannot do much against a terran turtling behind a closed wall and shooting with marines, or a protoss with immortals and adepts.
- tempestn 10y ago
  I agree with you. As I said, > Your parent post appears to suggest mitigating these other advantages in various ways (although I don't personally agree with that approach, since the computer isn't doing something that's out of reach for humans, just things that aren't practical for humans to achieve consistently). As far as your last paragraph, I suspect the issue is that people building AIs generally try to follow the spirit of the game. I believe it would be possible write an AI that wins by perfectly macroing out tier-1 units, rushing, and perfectly microing them (and obviously it would be much easier than to build a more general Starcraft AI). If it hasn't been done, I expect that's because it would be little more than a gimmick. It certainly wouldn't be any fun to play against, nor would it advance AI in general.
  - halflings 10y ago
    I don't think it's as easy as that. Even with perfect macro + micro, your opponent could simply scout you, see what build you're going for, and counter your build. Pro players do have (quasi-)perfect macro: They build units and buildings exactly when they should be built (especially at the early stages of the game). They also have an excellent micro. What makes one player win against the other is often the choices they make (going for a surprising build, or simply executing an attack in a way their opponent wouldn't be ready for). So I'm pretty sure an AI that would just mass zerglings and micro them "perfectly" still would be crushed by decent players that know how to counter that rush. (build a wall, and have siege tanks or a similar unit)
    - ethbro 10y ago
      This is one thing that I think would be fascinating when (if) we get to a competitive AI in this arena. Do we eventually see the hypothetical human (or AI!) opponent trying to metagame against the way an AI system interacts with the game? E.g. human-pointless feints in an attempt to pollute AI logic? Under the premise that a competitive AI will reason and act differently than a competitive human (due to aforementioned difference in speed/memory vs abstract thinking resources).
    - 10y ago

YokoZar 10y ago

Clicking the same button twice in a row in rapid succession is much easier for a human to do than clicking two small buttons on different parts of the screen. A naive counter of "actions per minute" would count both things as exactly the same number of actions. Whenever the harder action is better than the simpler one, the AI would gain an intrinsic advantage even though it's limited to the same number of APM.

otempomores 10y ago
Player attention as a ressource modeling. Ai will abandon battles that are no longer cost efficient much earlier