4 ms·

Wrong. Did you watch the presentation? Its APM was less than half that of its human opponent. If you aren't going to watch the presentation first, don't try to

Wrong. Did you watch the presentation? Its APM was less than half that of its human opponent. If you aren't going to watch the presentation first, don't try to get involved in the discussion in such a derisive and dismissive way. "It's not really that interesting tbh"....wow. It's something that's never been algorithmically done before, no matter who tried. How can you write that off as "not interesting" as if it's totally insignificant?

Thaxll 8y ago
I watched it and it doesn't means anything, they said it has lower APM than a human, but what an APM means for a computer anyway? APM is just a way of mesuring how fast you click on a mice / keyboard, but the descion making is not related to the APM speed. My point is it could click 10x slower than a human and still out beat it at macro. The real issue I have here is the game can be won by just outplaying the other at macro. Edit: They actually say exactly what I just said: These results suggest that AlphaStar’s success against MaNa and TLO was in fact due to superior macro and micro-strategic decision-making, rather than superior click-rate, faster reaction times, or the raw interface. It feels like bruteforce not really AI, that's my point. If a computer knows everything about the game ( mvmt speed, projectile speed, ect ... ) how it is you call it smart where it's just computing power to know when to engage and when not.
- aerovistae 8y ago
  ....but.....but...that's EXACTLY the challenge of RTS games.....no AI has been able to beat a human at macro until now. That's the whole point... > was in fact due to superior macro and micro-strategic decision-making That's exactly the crux of the accomplishment! How are you writing this off as not impressive?! Like, what exactly do you want the AI to be able to do if not win by superior strategic decision-making?? > how can you call it smart when it's just computing power to know when to engage and when not. But it ISN'T just computing power, any more than AlphaGo was. If it was, then they would have already done this years ago, wouldn't they? Anyone could just rent some servers off AWS and do it. it isn't even remotely that simple. It's a major work of algorithmic innovation, and you don't seem to understand that.
  - b_tterc_p 8y ago
    GP has it backwards. The Ai won on micro, not macro. Computer apm is not the same as human apm. Humans have numerous unnecessary actions, whereas computers don’t. This is visible just watching the game. Computer dominated on micro. When the computer lost, it was because it failed to cope with a basic macro curveball
saberience 8y ago
Its APM maxed out at 1500apm which is far more than any normal human.
- aerovistae 8y ago
  That's instantaneous APM, not general APM over the course of the game. The human player's instantaneous APM went well past 1000 at certain moments during the course of the matches, too. All that means is a few clicks as fast as possible.
  - saberience 8y ago
    You can't compare the two. No human can do 1000 meaningful actions per-minute. Even when a human is doing 400apm, probably 100 of those are meaningless spam clicks. All of AlphaStar's actions are meaningful actions. So when AlphaStar is doing 1000-1500 APM, there's no way a human could do that or compete with that. This doesn't impress me because it's obvious if you create something that can do something way faster than a human it will win.
  - peterarmstrong 8y ago
    Yes, but individual perfect micro of 50 blink stalkers is beyond the capability of any pro, whereas I can spam-create Zerg units by holding down a key and have higher APM for a split-second, and I'm just a garbage diamond player.
saberience 8y ago
This guy didnt see the game where Alphastar had 1500 apm...

Thaxll 8y ago

I watched it and it doesn't means anything, they said it has lower APM than a human, but what an APM means for a computer anyway? APM is just a way of mesuring how fast you click on a mice / keyboard, but the descion making is not related to the APM speed. My point is it could click 10x slower than a human and still out beat it at macro. The real issue I have here is the game can be won by just outplaying the other at macro. Edit: They actually say exactly what I just said: These results suggest that AlphaStar’s success against MaNa and TLO was in fact due to superior macro and micro-strategic decision-making, rather than superior click-rate, faster reaction times, or the raw interface. It feels like bruteforce not really AI, that's my point. If a computer knows everything about the game ( mvmt speed, projectile speed, ect ... ) how it is you call it smart where it's just computing power to know when to engage and when not.

aerovistae 8y ago
....but.....but...that's EXACTLY the challenge of RTS games.....no AI has been able to beat a human at macro until now. That's the whole point... > was in fact due to superior macro and micro-strategic decision-making That's exactly the crux of the accomplishment! How are you writing this off as not impressive?! Like, what exactly do you want the AI to be able to do if not win by superior strategic decision-making?? > how can you call it smart when it's just computing power to know when to engage and when not. But it ISN'T just computing power, any more than AlphaGo was. If it was, then they would have already done this years ago, wouldn't they? Anyone could just rent some servers off AWS and do it. it isn't even remotely that simple. It's a major work of algorithmic innovation, and you don't seem to understand that.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  GP has it backwards. The Ai won on micro, not macro. Computer apm is not the same as human apm. Humans have numerous unnecessary actions, whereas computers don’t. This is visible just watching the game. Computer dominated on micro. When the computer lost, it was because it failed to cope with a basic macro curveball

saberience 8y ago

Its APM maxed out at 1500apm which is far more than any normal human.

aerovistae 8y ago
That's instantaneous APM, not general APM over the course of the game. The human player's instantaneous APM went well past 1000 at certain moments during the course of the matches, too. All that means is a few clicks as fast as possible.
- saberience 8y ago
  You can't compare the two. No human can do 1000 meaningful actions per-minute. Even when a human is doing 400apm, probably 100 of those are meaningless spam clicks. All of AlphaStar's actions are meaningful actions. So when AlphaStar is doing 1000-1500 APM, there's no way a human could do that or compete with that. This doesn't impress me because it's obvious if you create something that can do something way faster than a human it will win.
- peterarmstrong 8y ago
  Yes, but individual perfect micro of 50 blink stalkers is beyond the capability of any pro, whereas I can spam-create Zerg units by holding down a key and have higher APM for a split-second, and I'm just a garbage diamond player.

saberience 8y ago

This guy didnt see the game where Alphastar had 1500 apm...