4 ms·

Does the AI take a video input or is the AI still operating through a direct API into the game? If so, it's a bit like cheating. Pure data access and no visual

Does the AI take a video input or is the AI still operating through a direct API into the game? If so, it's a bit like cheating. Pure data access and no visual noise to filter through is a huge advantage for it but still impressive.

quux 8y ago
I believe the AI still has a direct API to the game and in the 10 matches it won it was able to effectively "see" and issue commands to the entire map all the time. In the last match they used a newer interface where the AI had the same restricted viewport as a human and had to decide where to move its camera to both see what's happening and make actions. The player and commentators both noticed that this resulted in more human like play, and the AI seemed less able to micro multiple armies stretching beyond the viewport like it had in earlier matches. The deepmind people said the restricted viewport did slow down training, but in the end it was able to get to the same skill level as the previous ones in the end.
- darepublic 8y ago
  If the ai plays equally well with restricted viewport why were the majority of the games played with nonrestrictive? It seems reasonable to assume that deep mind will eventually best humans at sc2 but seems like Google wanted a nice headline and rushed it imo.
  - the8472 8y ago
    Because they only added it recently. About a week before the livestream. The other games were recorded last year.
Zooper 8y ago
I agree, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The human has 10 fingers, a max amount of input keys it can reach with 1 hand, input lag between eyesight/motor-reaction/mouse-movement from point a-to-b. If we were trying to measure intelligence, we'd need a human with some more hands/fingers and input devices or an AI that has similar input limitations.
- mping 8y ago
  In the videos, there's the Actions Per Minute metrics for both the AI and human players. AI average should be around 100, the human is much higher (300 or so) - although it's still apples to oranges, at least the AI isn't going full throttle on the APMs.

quux 8y ago

I believe the AI still has a direct API to the game and in the 10 matches it won it was able to effectively "see" and issue commands to the entire map all the time. In the last match they used a newer interface where the AI had the same restricted viewport as a human and had to decide where to move its camera to both see what's happening and make actions. The player and commentators both noticed that this resulted in more human like play, and the AI seemed less able to micro multiple armies stretching beyond the viewport like it had in earlier matches. The deepmind people said the restricted viewport did slow down training, but in the end it was able to get to the same skill level as the previous ones in the end.

darepublic 8y ago
If the ai plays equally well with restricted viewport why were the majority of the games played with nonrestrictive? It seems reasonable to assume that deep mind will eventually best humans at sc2 but seems like Google wanted a nice headline and rushed it imo.
- the8472 8y ago
  Because they only added it recently. About a week before the livestream. The other games were recorded last year.

Zooper 8y ago

I agree, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The human has 10 fingers, a max amount of input keys it can reach with 1 hand, input lag between eyesight/motor-reaction/mouse-movement from point a-to-b. If we were trying to measure intelligence, we'd need a human with some more hands/fingers and input devices or an AI that has similar input limitations.

mping 8y ago
In the videos, there's the Actions Per Minute metrics for both the AI and human players. AI average should be around 100, the human is much higher (300 or so) - although it's still apples to oranges, at least the AI isn't going full throttle on the APMs.