4 ms·

> They are planning on limiting the APM of the AI anyway. They did that in these games. (Or at least, it didn't abuse absurdly high APM.) It still had insane

> They are planning on limiting the APM of the AI anyway. They did that in these games. (Or at least, it didn't abuse absurdly high APM.) It still had insane micro a) because it had a FoV which basically extended to the combined FoV of all if its units[1] rather than having to move a screen-size FoV, and b) when it micros it never really "misclicks" like a human would do under pressure. (This was most obvious in how it could micro against MaNa's army on 3 fronts in game 4 and how it was able to basically perfectly drain the Immortal barriers in the game where MaNa actually should have been able to defend against a human mass stalker build ~100% of the time.) One thing they weren't clear on was how it could tell how much health, etc. each enemy unit had -- did it have to spend an "action" (like a player would have to click) to do that? If so, then that's even more insane in terms of micro ability. Anyway, disagree about BW. Perfect micro in BW is possibly even more devastating than in SC2, IMO, because there are all these weird glitches that you can do -- the best players can do them some of the time, but no players can do it perfectly all of the time. [1] This was not the case for the final game which it lost.

z_open 8y ago
>It still had insane micro a) because it had a FoV which basically extended to the combined FoV of all if its units[1] rather than having to move a screen-size FoV, and b) when it micros it never really "misclicks" like a human would do under pressure. This is an oversight that I imagine they will eventually fix as well. Doesn't make sense to allow the AI to do this, because the focus is on the AI understanding the game. >Anyway, disagree about BW. Perfect micro in BW is possibly even more devastating than in SC2, IMO, because there are all these weird glitches that you can do -- the best players can do them some of the time, but no players can do it perfectly all of the time. I didn't mention micro specifically, I mentioned abilities. The perfect micro issue can again be solved by limiting the AI's APM. They may be able to execute micro tricks, but not constantly.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Once machines exceed normal human play, further research does not focus on trying to make the machines play badly so that it's fun to face humans again. What ever would be the point of that? Instead we just watch the machines versus other machines. This is why we didn't see "AlphaZero plays chess versus grand master" games - they'd be dull, A0 wipes the floor with grand masters because it's an AI and grand masters aren't, boring. But lc0 and similar have been entering computer chess competitions with (a clone of) the Google Alpha Zero design. It does pretty well. Just as with TAS in speed running, you get a synergy. On the one hand, the machines play a distinctly different game, perfect on its own terms, a TAS run never succeeds in a frame perfect trick on the second or third try, always the first - the AI will never mis-blink a stalker to a pointless death. But human play continues, not against the machine but parallel to it, and learning from it. Golden Eye speedrunning was hugely influenced by TAS findings. Modern human chess is influenced by the machine chess play styles.

z_open 8y ago

>It still had insane micro a) because it had a FoV which basically extended to the combined FoV of all if its units[1] rather than having to move a screen-size FoV, and b) when it micros it never really "misclicks" like a human would do under pressure. This is an oversight that I imagine they will eventually fix as well. Doesn't make sense to allow the AI to do this, because the focus is on the AI understanding the game. >Anyway, disagree about BW. Perfect micro in BW is possibly even more devastating than in SC2, IMO, because there are all these weird glitches that you can do -- the best players can do them some of the time, but no players can do it perfectly all of the time. I didn't mention micro specifically, I mentioned abilities. The perfect micro issue can again be solved by limiting the AI's APM. They may be able to execute micro tricks, but not constantly.

tialaramex 8y ago
Once machines exceed normal human play, further research does not focus on trying to make the machines play badly so that it's fun to face humans again. What ever would be the point of that? Instead we just watch the machines versus other machines. This is why we didn't see "AlphaZero plays chess versus grand master" games - they'd be dull, A0 wipes the floor with grand masters because it's an AI and grand masters aren't, boring. But lc0 and similar have been entering computer chess competitions with (a clone of) the Google Alpha Zero design. It does pretty well. Just as with TAS in speed running, you get a synergy. On the one hand, the machines play a distinctly different game, perfect on its own terms, a TAS run never succeeds in a frame perfect trick on the second or third try, always the first - the AI will never mis-blink a stalker to a pointless death. But human play continues, not against the machine but parallel to it, and learning from it. Golden Eye speedrunning was hugely influenced by TAS findings. Modern human chess is influenced by the machine chess play styles.