6 ms·

I'm still kind of disappointed with how much hubbub came out of these games. I watched most of them and it just in general felt like mediocre dota even against

I'm still kind of disappointed with how much hubbub came out of these games. I watched most of them and it just in general felt like mediocre dota even against the pro team. I'm not saying I am amazing but I wish this article came out sooner to kind of put a reasonable contrast in the stuff that was coming out. While I enjoyed the idea of the drafting phase it is hard to not look at the hero pool available and see only two or three reasonable lineups (both of OG's lineups trying to take advantage of invis heroes were both weak in general in the current version), and I think the shown drafts display that. It's hard not to feel like that OpenAI solved the problem of that limited hero pool and ended up with a superior team to humans who weren't familiar with that version of the game. I don't think that's a wrong outcome, but people trying to frame it that OpenAI beat OG at their own game in the same lines as go, chess, or checkers seems misleading. I think I am just still feeling sensitive to the sentiments and outcome that ended up being the outcome of systems which got on the press pipeline like watson. I wish it was more celebrating how they were able to create this ensemble learning environment, so I'm hoping for that more detailed analysis especially how they were able to adapt (and hopefully not throw away) the learning they did after some of the really large patches.

hug 8y ago
There are so many ways in which I feel this argument breaks down. * OG would absolutely handily win against any non-professionally-contracted dota team under the exact same challenge conditions. (i.e.: OpenAI Five's test was about as good as they could give it at this stage.) * OG's play within the scope of the game was novel, in that they were deliberately picking strategies that OpenAI Five didn't "understand" (i.e.: creep skipping) and still lost. * OpenAI's play was novel, even within the constraints of the pool: No human team would pick the 4-core + CM lineup that OpenAI favoured. Even if you played with that limited hero meta, 4-core would likely not end up being a deliberate strategy picked by human teams with any frequency. * OpenAI's play in all team fights was demonstrably better, playing exactly up to the limits of the heroes they were using and no further. (It is, in fact, OpenAI's teamfight which won them the game.) * A number of the reductions and restrictions in hero-pool were to allow for OG to have a fighting chance: All heroes with controllable illusions or clones were banned because OpenAI had too much of an advantage in "micro". If you sum all of those things up, I think it looks painfully obvious that OpenAI Five, if trained against the full hero pool, would completely and utterly dominate gameplay at the professional human level. It wouldn't even be close.
- ctchocula 8y ago
  > A number of the reductions and restrictions in hero-pool were to allow for OG to have a fighting chance: All heroes with controllable illusions or clones were banned because OpenAI had too much of an advantage in "micro". This one is not so certain. One of the OG players (Notail) mentioned after the game that the AI definitely had a few weaknesses such as: * AI didn't bother checking the trees after the splitpushing hero disappeared from the map. * AI doesn't handle invisible units well. * AI has poor warding. He said he regretted not exploiting these weaknesses more. There are certain splitpush ("rat Dota") heroes that potentially could have helped OG to the detriment of AI e.g. Antimage, Furion, Morphling, Juggernaut, etc. Instead, what we saw was OG using a non-traditional split push hero (Viper) from the limited hero pool try to split push, which failed because the hero got ganked too often (Viper does not have natural escape mechanism unlike many of those splitpush heroes above and he didn't itemize for splitpush e.g. Shadowblade first item) and it doesn't push very fast. With these splitpush heroes and well-placed observer wards, I think a splitpush-based lineup could possibly take the game. OpenAI's play was very impressive. I did not see this coming after OpenAI lost to some of the weaker pro teams at last year's TI. However, I would give OG even chances at winning a longer series (Bo5 or Bo7) over 5 or 7 days where they could learn from OpenAI's playstyle and figure out strategies on how to exploit them similar to how in longer Dota 2 tournaments, we see initially successful strategies on Day 1 get countered by the tournament final. Another analogy is the 1v1 bot that OpenAI released. When released, even pro players would lose to it. However shortly after, the combined intelligence of the Dota 2 community discovered an exploit where if you lead the enemy creepwave into the jungle, the AI bot glitches out and the human player eventually wins [1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6t8qvs/openai_bots_were_defeated_atleast_50_times/dliundl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6t8qvs/openai_bots_w...
  - hcnews 8y ago
    > AI didn't bother checking the trees after the splitpushing hero disappeared from the map. This isn't true always, AI did check trees near radiant bot T1 in the co-op match. Also, I am hoping OG competes against OpenAI during this weekend and streams it. It would be exciting to watch.
  - 8y ago

hug 8y ago

There are so many ways in which I feel this argument breaks down. * OG would absolutely handily win against any non-professionally-contracted dota team under the exact same challenge conditions. (i.e.: OpenAI Five's test was about as good as they could give it at this stage.) * OG's play within the scope of the game was novel, in that they were deliberately picking strategies that OpenAI Five didn't "understand" (i.e.: creep skipping) and still lost. * OpenAI's play was novel, even within the constraints of the pool: No human team would pick the 4-core + CM lineup that OpenAI favoured. Even if you played with that limited hero meta, 4-core would likely not end up being a deliberate strategy picked by human teams with any frequency. * OpenAI's play in all team fights was demonstrably better, playing exactly up to the limits of the heroes they were using and no further. (It is, in fact, OpenAI's teamfight which won them the game.) * A number of the reductions and restrictions in hero-pool were to allow for OG to have a fighting chance: All heroes with controllable illusions or clones were banned because OpenAI had too much of an advantage in "micro". If you sum all of those things up, I think it looks painfully obvious that OpenAI Five, if trained against the full hero pool, would completely and utterly dominate gameplay at the professional human level. It wouldn't even be close.

ctchocula 8y ago
> A number of the reductions and restrictions in hero-pool were to allow for OG to have a fighting chance: All heroes with controllable illusions or clones were banned because OpenAI had too much of an advantage in "micro". This one is not so certain. One of the OG players (Notail) mentioned after the game that the AI definitely had a few weaknesses such as: * AI didn't bother checking the trees after the splitpushing hero disappeared from the map. * AI doesn't handle invisible units well. * AI has poor warding. He said he regretted not exploiting these weaknesses more. There are certain splitpush ("rat Dota") heroes that potentially could have helped OG to the detriment of AI e.g. Antimage, Furion, Morphling, Juggernaut, etc. Instead, what we saw was OG using a non-traditional split push hero (Viper) from the limited hero pool try to split push, which failed because the hero got ganked too often (Viper does not have natural escape mechanism unlike many of those splitpush heroes above and he didn't itemize for splitpush e.g. Shadowblade first item) and it doesn't push very fast. With these splitpush heroes and well-placed observer wards, I think a splitpush-based lineup could possibly take the game. OpenAI's play was very impressive. I did not see this coming after OpenAI lost to some of the weaker pro teams at last year's TI. However, I would give OG even chances at winning a longer series (Bo5 or Bo7) over 5 or 7 days where they could learn from OpenAI's playstyle and figure out strategies on how to exploit them similar to how in longer Dota 2 tournaments, we see initially successful strategies on Day 1 get countered by the tournament final. Another analogy is the 1v1 bot that OpenAI released. When released, even pro players would lose to it. However shortly after, the combined intelligence of the Dota 2 community discovered an exploit where if you lead the enemy creepwave into the jungle, the AI bot glitches out and the human player eventually wins [1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6t8qvs/openai_bots_were_defeated_atleast_50_times/dliundl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6t8qvs/openai_bots_w...
- hcnews 8y ago
  > AI didn't bother checking the trees after the splitpushing hero disappeared from the map. This isn't true always, AI did check trees near radiant bot T1 in the co-op match. Also, I am hoping OG competes against OpenAI during this weekend and streams it. It would be exciting to watch.
- 8y ago