5 ms·

I agree that AIs will eventually win. But I only consider human beings beaten when the AI is interfacing with the machine the same way as humans -- looking at

I agree that AIs will eventually win. But I only consider human beings beaten when the AI is interfacing with the machine the same way as humans -- looking at the monitor, and inputting commands through keyboard and mouse. That is on a different level than just hooking into a log of events and calculating your next move. Given enough time humans would do that better than the AI imo

21 8y ago
Come on, do you think hooking a robot to the keyboard is the hard part? Do you want 5 fingers too? And if watching the screen, do you want it to have bad eyes like we do too (good resolution only in the center)?
- darepublic 8y ago
  Yea, I think having a robot use fingers to manipulate the keyboard like a human is a very hard part
  - greenhatman 8y ago
    Mouse eye coordination would probably be harder.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Have you seen the robots that place components on circuit boards? I don't think that hitting keys on a keyboard is more difficult.
- yters 8y ago
  Moravec's paradox!
- gsich 8y ago
  Yes. Right now the AI has more information than the humans.
- gaius 8y ago
  Come on, do you think hooking a robot to the keyboard is the hard part? Do you want 5 fingers too? Yes, it is. Also, “seeing” the screen rather than being able to directly introspect the game world digitally. Orders of magnitude harder. This is known as Moravec’s Paradox.
- fenomas 8y ago
  The relevant question is surely how much of the game is strategy, and how much is reaction time and twitch motor skills. I mean, "human vs AI" matchups are ostensibly about strategy - machines already win at timing and twitch, there's nothing to test. But esports games aren't pure strategy, they all involve various amounts of timing, twitch skills, the ability to monitor lots of details at once, etc. Those are all things that AI opponents can (trivially) do perfectly, which gives the AI a huge advantage. It then follows that an AI player should be able to win even with an inferior strategy (which makes you wonder if these games are really suited to AI research in the first place?).
  - yvdriess 8y ago
    Dota is a bit different from other esports such as SC2, in that it leans much more on game-sense and decision making than twitch skills[1]. Nevertheless, OpenAI dulled the reaction time artificially to be more human-like. It makes sense if the goal is to make a sophisticated strategic/gamesense AI, and not one that wins by just executing better. [1] For an entertaining case-study, check out Day[9]'s learns DotA2 series.
    - fenomas 8y ago
      Oh, that's interesting about the reaction time. Not having played DotA I have no idea how big an issue it is (and I couldn't make heads or tails of the video :D ). It occurs to me that for a really even playing field, the humans should probably be allowed to make and install UI mods if they want to. E.g. if there's an advantage to using an ability precisely when your hit points hit 50% (or whatever), an AI can easily do that reliably so the human should probably be able to if they want to. (Of course, for heavily twitch games like Counterstrike, being allowed to use UI mods (i.e. aimbots) would break things. But then, I suppose that the extent to which UI mods break a game is more or less the extent to which that game favors twitch over strategy.)
      - yvdriess 8y ago
        Good point, and a hot topic over the years in the DotA community. The developer introduced some UI changes over the years that do exactly that: show every bit of information that an expert human or AI could realistically figure out and exploit. For some, it's dumbing down the game for a new audience, nullifying their hard work. I think the community consensus now is in favor: the game is complex enough that it does not need arbitrary skill-differentiation mechanics. For instance, high-level players used to memorize and practice the duration of some abilities (stuns), because you have an advantage if you can chain these perfectly. Valve introduced a visual progress bar that showed how much the disabled effect on a hero lasts, making it much easier to chain disables. They now also show how far 'towers' can shoot, but also which entity it is currently targeting (tower 'aggro' mechanics has its own special logic). They go so far as to show spawn boxes for neutral monsters.
- richardknop 8y ago
  Yes it is difficult. Under current conditions AI has access to much more data than humans. So it is unfair battle, it would be fair comparison if AI was programmed in such a way to have more of an analogue input of data similar to human eyes looking at a monitor and also analogue input of actions similar to human pressing keyboard keys which is much more inefficient as AI just calling internal functions to execute actions.
stale2002 8y ago
I mean, interacting with the mouse and keyboard isn't the interesting part. Like, imagine if this was a chess AI, and we were trying to determine who was better at chess, humans or AI. Would you make the AI use robotic hands to move the pieces? No, because thats not the interesting part of chess. The interesting part of chess is the strategy.
- RodericDay 8y ago
  frame and position perfect spell casting is like an aimhack in counterstrike bots are really really good at FPSs with zero ML, just because its easy to point and click at the right position if you're fed its coordinates directly
- moogly 8y ago
  There is 0 mechanical skill involved in chess. Reflexes don't matter. There is mechanical skill involved in Dota 2, and reflexes matter. And consider a game like Quake where mechanical skill is even more important (even though mechanical skill matters, Dota 2 is still primarily a game about strategy and team coordination).
  - shagie 8y ago
    I would encourage you to watch this APM demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbpCLqryN-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbpCLqryN-Q , give https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/24/starcraft-2-and-the-quest-for-the-highest-apm/ https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/24/starcraft-2-and-the-ques... a read (600 APM) and consider how much of an advantage the computer has.
    - kolinko 8y ago
      APM matters less in Dota than in Starcraft
- andrei_says_ 8y ago
  Interacting with the mouse and keyboard at this speed and precision is absolutely a very interesting part for me. It is a limitation of he human organism. What if we could pit humans and ai bots at the speed of human imagination?

21 8y ago

Come on, do you think hooking a robot to the keyboard is the hard part? Do you want 5 fingers too? And if watching the screen, do you want it to have bad eyes like we do too (good resolution only in the center)?

darepublic 8y ago
Yea, I think having a robot use fingers to manipulate the keyboard like a human is a very hard part
- greenhatman 8y ago
  Mouse eye coordination would probably be harder.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Have you seen the robots that place components on circuit boards? I don't think that hitting keys on a keyboard is more difficult.
yters 8y ago
Moravec's paradox!
gsich 8y ago
Yes. Right now the AI has more information than the humans.
gaius 8y ago
Come on, do you think hooking a robot to the keyboard is the hard part? Do you want 5 fingers too? Yes, it is. Also, “seeing” the screen rather than being able to directly introspect the game world digitally. Orders of magnitude harder. This is known as Moravec’s Paradox.
fenomas 8y ago
The relevant question is surely how much of the game is strategy, and how much is reaction time and twitch motor skills. I mean, "human vs AI" matchups are ostensibly about strategy - machines already win at timing and twitch, there's nothing to test. But esports games aren't pure strategy, they all involve various amounts of timing, twitch skills, the ability to monitor lots of details at once, etc. Those are all things that AI opponents can (trivially) do perfectly, which gives the AI a huge advantage. It then follows that an AI player should be able to win even with an inferior strategy (which makes you wonder if these games are really suited to AI research in the first place?).
- yvdriess 8y ago
  Dota is a bit different from other esports such as SC2, in that it leans much more on game-sense and decision making than twitch skills[1]. Nevertheless, OpenAI dulled the reaction time artificially to be more human-like. It makes sense if the goal is to make a sophisticated strategic/gamesense AI, and not one that wins by just executing better. [1] For an entertaining case-study, check out Day[9]'s learns DotA2 series.
  - fenomas 8y ago
    Oh, that's interesting about the reaction time. Not having played DotA I have no idea how big an issue it is (and I couldn't make heads or tails of the video :D ). It occurs to me that for a really even playing field, the humans should probably be allowed to make and install UI mods if they want to. E.g. if there's an advantage to using an ability precisely when your hit points hit 50% (or whatever), an AI can easily do that reliably so the human should probably be able to if they want to. (Of course, for heavily twitch games like Counterstrike, being allowed to use UI mods (i.e. aimbots) would break things. But then, I suppose that the extent to which UI mods break a game is more or less the extent to which that game favors twitch over strategy.)
    - yvdriess 8y ago
      Good point, and a hot topic over the years in the DotA community. The developer introduced some UI changes over the years that do exactly that: show every bit of information that an expert human or AI could realistically figure out and exploit. For some, it's dumbing down the game for a new audience, nullifying their hard work. I think the community consensus now is in favor: the game is complex enough that it does not need arbitrary skill-differentiation mechanics. For instance, high-level players used to memorize and practice the duration of some abilities (stuns), because you have an advantage if you can chain these perfectly. Valve introduced a visual progress bar that showed how much the disabled effect on a hero lasts, making it much easier to chain disables. They now also show how far 'towers' can shoot, but also which entity it is currently targeting (tower 'aggro' mechanics has its own special logic). They go so far as to show spawn boxes for neutral monsters.
richardknop 8y ago
Yes it is difficult. Under current conditions AI has access to much more data than humans. So it is unfair battle, it would be fair comparison if AI was programmed in such a way to have more of an analogue input of data similar to human eyes looking at a monitor and also analogue input of actions similar to human pressing keyboard keys which is much more inefficient as AI just calling internal functions to execute actions.

stale2002 8y ago

I mean, interacting with the mouse and keyboard isn't the interesting part. Like, imagine if this was a chess AI, and we were trying to determine who was better at chess, humans or AI. Would you make the AI use robotic hands to move the pieces? No, because thats not the interesting part of chess. The interesting part of chess is the strategy.

RodericDay 8y ago
frame and position perfect spell casting is like an aimhack in counterstrike bots are really really good at FPSs with zero ML, just because its easy to point and click at the right position if you're fed its coordinates directly
moogly 8y ago
There is 0 mechanical skill involved in chess. Reflexes don't matter. There is mechanical skill involved in Dota 2, and reflexes matter. And consider a game like Quake where mechanical skill is even more important (even though mechanical skill matters, Dota 2 is still primarily a game about strategy and team coordination).
- shagie 8y ago
  I would encourage you to watch this APM demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbpCLqryN-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbpCLqryN-Q , give https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/24/starcraft-2-and-the-quest-for-the-highest-apm/ https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/24/starcraft-2-and-the-ques... a read (600 APM) and consider how much of an advantage the computer has.
  - kolinko 8y ago
    APM matters less in Dota than in Starcraft
andrei_says_ 8y ago
Interacting with the mouse and keyboard at this speed and precision is absolutely a very interesting part for me. It is a limitation of he human organism. What if we could pit humans and ai bots at the speed of human imagination?