4 ms·
Exactly why this is not impressive to me. The point is to be able to learn the rules, but all I see is some of not only the rules, but the actions already presp
by damnfine 9y ago
Exactly why this is not impressive to me. The point is to be able to learn the rules, but all I see is some of not only the rules, but the actions already prespecified in many cases. Yes its hard, and thats why humans still rule the roost.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sp332 9y agoHumans learn from each other and don't puzzle everything out from first principles. So I wouldn't put that restriction on a computer intelligence either.
- mannykannot 9y agoThat is fine, so long as we are not expected to hold both that it is not a big deal when it is not achieved, and is a big deal when it is achieved. Personally, I incline towards the latter.
- Twirrim 9y agoSurely all this RL process did was speed up what the computer would have learned, by a large stretch? The "cost" factors they chose would have hit them ultimately, regardless of if the bot stood still in the base, or wandered off elsewhere.
- aoeuasdf1 9y agoNot necessarily - maybe a mixed strategy of (1) Not creepblocking at all, and letting your opponent have your creeps under their tower (2) Modest creepblocking to punish (1) (3) Severe creepblocking to punish (2) Would be better than some hand-trained RL creepblocking which is divorced from game outcomes.
- mannykannot 9y agoMy guess is that in general, many complex strategies are effectively unreachable without something like analysis, on account of intermediate states being disfavored, leading to algorithms being trapped by local minima in the cost function (I don't know whether that would be an issue for this game, specifically.)