3 ms·
To me though as an outside observer it seems that the dota problem is harder than the car problem. There's too much action going on, too many visual/aural cues
by lvoudour 9y ago
To me though as an outside observer it seems that the dota problem is harder than the car problem. There's too much action going on, too many visual/aural cues to keep track of, team cooperation/coordination, fog of war, etc.
Car AI is important because there are real life-or-death consequences, but the problem (again to my limited experience) seems more tractable: path choices are limited, action is rare, there's no team element and there's no competition. Even for human drivers driving a car in a city or motorway is a tedious, mostly repetitive task. Now, competitive driving raises the stakes and we haven't seen any self-driving car tackling that problem yet (which will definitely raise a lot of eyebrows)
- hobofan 9y ago> there's no team element and there's no competition I don't think that this is true, considering all the other humans on/near the road, that can influence the system by making actions of their own. > There's too much action going on, too many visual/aural cues to keep track of, team cooperation/coordination, fog of war, etc. I dont see how this is different from a car at all. - too many visual/aural cues to keep track of -> everything you can see, car horns, etc. - team cooperation/coordination -> as I said everyone else on/near the road - fog of war -> blind spots & people hidden behind objects From some experience in the AI world, I can say that I've seen systems that are good enough that they should be able to solve most of those subproblems in the limited system that is Dota. Yes, fog of war might also be interesting given that you have an agressive opponent. The real novel things lie at the strategy level, like picking a hero, buying items, etc., because, like AlphaGo, they demonstrate reasoning in systems with a large action space and delayed payoff.