4 ms·

Calling them a 'joke' is pretty extreme. Did you watch the benchmark? They were pretty much steamrolling the caster team. With all due respect, the professiona

Calling them a 'joke' is pretty extreme. Did you watch the benchmark? They were pretty much steamrolling the caster team. With all due respect, the professionals who have played against the bot have been pretty impressed with previous iteration. The major roadblocks at TI were probably that the bot did not efficiently learn courier mechanics and that the draft was not done by the bot.

foota 8y ago
What about parents comments about the bots deficits? It doesn't really matter if the bots win if they can only win due to mechanical advantage imo.
- whymauri 8y ago
  There is no mechanical advantage, they have their response time capped at 200ms which is around an elite player's reaction. They can definitely strategize for ganks and the future reward function anticipates high reward roaming/ganking plays.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    They have 200ms reaction time without needing to move a mouse and/or target the opponent. A human has ~200ms simple reaction time, then begins to move their fingers. Which then moves a mouse to target an area, which then requires hotkeys to be pushed. etc. etc. Its still definitely a mechanical advantage, and it seems evident in the gameplay videos. The bots still seem "super-human" in their aim and some of the timing of spells.
    - SmallDeadGuy 8y ago
      Not to mention they have exact numbers to help, too. A human sees a healthbar ~1/4 full of a hero with ~1200 health and has to guess whether their ~300 damage spell will kill them. If not, are they sure they're in range for an auto attack, too? Will the enemy health regen push them over the life-death boundary in the time it takes for the projectile to reach? The bots know these numbers _precisely_.
  - gsich 8y ago
    Of course there is, no need for button presses, no need for mouse movements. While you can probably train yourself to have a reaction time of 100ms (in case of expected events), executing takes more time. You said you know Dota, but that statement makes it hard to believe.
  - kenhwang 8y ago
    200ms is faster than the 300ms cast time of Axe's call and Tidehunter's ravage. Pros almost never react fast enough to blink/euls dodge those skills (0s cast time for blink/euls, 200ms reaction time gives the bots a 100ms window to respond). The bots dodged those skills every time. That was the only initiation option available in that draft until late game and the bots were more or less immune to it. That's a pretty significant mechanical advantage.
    - s_trumpet 8y ago
      As you said, the common Axe blink-call combo does not work on these bots; they dodge it immediately. What was interesting to me was that since the bots trained against themselves, they discarded this combo as being ineffective - the result being that they did not use this combo even against vulnerable human players.
    - backpropaganda 8y ago
      Axe's cast time (also called cast point) is 400ms. Source: https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Axe https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Axe This means that Dota 2 was balanced around the expectation that human's best reaction would be at least 400ms, because I've never seen Axe's blink calls being dodged unless the player had vision of Axe before the blink and thus was expecting it.
kenhwang 8y ago
The caster team played against the iteration of the bot that was trained on a different version of the game that's very unlike the normal game (multi-invincible couriers). Multiple invincible couriers makes the game very similar to the 1v1 show match last year where the strategy of just out-live the opponent wins. The casters have never played that version of the game before, and wouldn't know to use that strategy. The more interesting part was, the bots attempted to use that very same strategy in the single-vulnerable normal version of the game which was drastically less effective; you could only ferry out consumables at 1/5th the rate as before and the courier could be killed so it wasn't a riskless strategy like it was before.
- whymauri 8y ago
  I mean yeah, this version of the bot had drastically less time to train. Only 6 days compared to a few weeks for that version. I know how the game works, I mentioned the couriers already. I 100% disagree that the invincible couriers make the game "very similar" to the 1v1. There's many more layers of engineering that went into that version. The bots had to learn drafting, cooperation, highground pushing, Roshan, vision, invisibility, etc. I'm amazed you can trivialize all this as a 'joke'.
  - alper111 8y ago
    If you look at network structure, it acts as one agent, not five. So, free coordination. (See: https://t.co/GPKHPsIu1C https://t.co/GPKHPsIu1C) In my opinion, what i see is a very good player who knows how to chain stun precisely without any strategic depth. If you claim to have built an AI system, which you ultimately want it to evolve to AGI, you at least expect some sort of strategic decision making at the macro level. Though since it has almost perfect micro, it can easily outweight the most of teams. So yeah, with that expectation I see this as a joke, too. P.S. The model is trained with 128k cpus and 256 gpu. It is able to play 180 years worth of game in a day. Think about it.
    - whymauri 8y ago
      It's five independent agents. The article on OpenAI's website and the network structure both say this. I'll zoom in since it's a complicated structure. It's the first line of the article: https://blog.openai.com/openai-five/ https://blog.openai.com/openai-five/ >Our team of five neural networks, They use a hyperparameter called team spirit to cooperate. I don't think the goal of this is AGI at all, so I don't see why people are making that leap. But sure, for the geniuses of HN this must clearly be trivial.
RSZC 8y ago
As far as we've seen the bot only knows a single strategy. In the mid game, group, push lanes, push lanes, push lanes. The games vs the caster team had multiple differences from standard dota that allowed this strategy to be effective, such as the multiple invincible couriers (no need to stop your push if you have infinite heals) and a lack of split push ("rat") heroes allowed that would force the ai to abandon their pushes. The games they won weren't actual dota games - they were a simplified subset of dota that overweights teamfights and mechanical skill - exactly the subset that we'd expect an AI to be best at.

foota 8y ago

What about parents comments about the bots deficits? It doesn't really matter if the bots win if they can only win due to mechanical advantage imo.

whymauri 8y ago
There is no mechanical advantage, they have their response time capped at 200ms which is around an elite player's reaction. They can definitely strategize for ganks and the future reward function anticipates high reward roaming/ganking plays.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  They have 200ms reaction time without needing to move a mouse and/or target the opponent. A human has ~200ms simple reaction time, then begins to move their fingers. Which then moves a mouse to target an area, which then requires hotkeys to be pushed. etc. etc. Its still definitely a mechanical advantage, and it seems evident in the gameplay videos. The bots still seem "super-human" in their aim and some of the timing of spells.
  - SmallDeadGuy 8y ago
    Not to mention they have exact numbers to help, too. A human sees a healthbar ~1/4 full of a hero with ~1200 health and has to guess whether their ~300 damage spell will kill them. If not, are they sure they're in range for an auto attack, too? Will the enemy health regen push them over the life-death boundary in the time it takes for the projectile to reach? The bots know these numbers _precisely_.
- gsich 8y ago
  Of course there is, no need for button presses, no need for mouse movements. While you can probably train yourself to have a reaction time of 100ms (in case of expected events), executing takes more time. You said you know Dota, but that statement makes it hard to believe.
- kenhwang 8y ago
  200ms is faster than the 300ms cast time of Axe's call and Tidehunter's ravage. Pros almost never react fast enough to blink/euls dodge those skills (0s cast time for blink/euls, 200ms reaction time gives the bots a 100ms window to respond). The bots dodged those skills every time. That was the only initiation option available in that draft until late game and the bots were more or less immune to it. That's a pretty significant mechanical advantage.
  - s_trumpet 8y ago
    As you said, the common Axe blink-call combo does not work on these bots; they dodge it immediately. What was interesting to me was that since the bots trained against themselves, they discarded this combo as being ineffective - the result being that they did not use this combo even against vulnerable human players.
  - backpropaganda 8y ago
    Axe's cast time (also called cast point) is 400ms. Source: https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Axe https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Axe This means that Dota 2 was balanced around the expectation that human's best reaction would be at least 400ms, because I've never seen Axe's blink calls being dodged unless the player had vision of Axe before the blink and thus was expecting it.

kenhwang 8y ago

The caster team played against the iteration of the bot that was trained on a different version of the game that's very unlike the normal game (multi-invincible couriers). Multiple invincible couriers makes the game very similar to the 1v1 show match last year where the strategy of just out-live the opponent wins. The casters have never played that version of the game before, and wouldn't know to use that strategy. The more interesting part was, the bots attempted to use that very same strategy in the single-vulnerable normal version of the game which was drastically less effective; you could only ferry out consumables at 1/5th the rate as before and the courier could be killed so it wasn't a riskless strategy like it was before.

whymauri 8y ago
I mean yeah, this version of the bot had drastically less time to train. Only 6 days compared to a few weeks for that version. I know how the game works, I mentioned the couriers already. I 100% disagree that the invincible couriers make the game "very similar" to the 1v1. There's many more layers of engineering that went into that version. The bots had to learn drafting, cooperation, highground pushing, Roshan, vision, invisibility, etc. I'm amazed you can trivialize all this as a 'joke'.
- alper111 8y ago
  If you look at network structure, it acts as one agent, not five. So, free coordination. (See: https://t.co/GPKHPsIu1C https://t.co/GPKHPsIu1C) In my opinion, what i see is a very good player who knows how to chain stun precisely without any strategic depth. If you claim to have built an AI system, which you ultimately want it to evolve to AGI, you at least expect some sort of strategic decision making at the macro level. Though since it has almost perfect micro, it can easily outweight the most of teams. So yeah, with that expectation I see this as a joke, too. P.S. The model is trained with 128k cpus and 256 gpu. It is able to play 180 years worth of game in a day. Think about it.
  - whymauri 8y ago
    It's five independent agents. The article on OpenAI's website and the network structure both say this. I'll zoom in since it's a complicated structure. It's the first line of the article: https://blog.openai.com/openai-five/ https://blog.openai.com/openai-five/ >Our team of five neural networks, They use a hyperparameter called team spirit to cooperate. I don't think the goal of this is AGI at all, so I don't see why people are making that leap. But sure, for the geniuses of HN this must clearly be trivial.

RSZC 8y ago

As far as we've seen the bot only knows a single strategy. In the mid game, group, push lanes, push lanes, push lanes. The games vs the caster team had multiple differences from standard dota that allowed this strategy to be effective, such as the multiple invincible couriers (no need to stop your push if you have infinite heals) and a lack of split push ("rat") heroes allowed that would force the ai to abandon their pushes. The games they won weren't actual dota games - they were a simplified subset of dota that overweights teamfights and mechanical skill - exactly the subset that we'd expect an AI to be best at.