3 ms·

An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a w

An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basically the only one at work, this time the "body" might have had just as much of an input. Even regular bots were good enough for most players anyway :).

Kiro 7y ago
They add artificial delay and other handicaps in order to compensate and match human shortcomings.
ctoth 7y ago
Source?
- close04 7y ago
  > at close range, FTW excelled in combat, in part because its reaction time was half that of a human's, and in part because its accuracy was 80 percent compared to the humans' 50 percent. [0] I see now that reaction time was compensated for. No info on accuracy. [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/googles-ai-group-moves-on-from-go-tackles-quake-iii-arena/?comments=1&unread=1#unread https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/googles-ai-group-mov...
wickoff 7y ago
People said the same thing about DeepMind's SC2 wins. Its actions per minute spiked to inhuman levels briefly and its efficiency and precision of control was nearly perfect. These types of criticisms completely miss the point. People were attempting to build StarCraft agents for 10 years. 50000 actions per minute, complete vision of the entire map, predefined scripted build orders, restrictions on human opponents - nothing worked. A moderately competent player would destroy those old bots in 10 out of 10 games, it wasn't close. These games have so much more to them than reaction time and dexterity, these new agents are doing something that simply wasn't possible before.
- jvanderbot 7y ago
  Agree. But OP is saying in a battle wits, its hard to factor out the battle of wrists.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  That's because that AI would always have some exploitable flaws that people pick up on really quickly. I wouldn't be sure that DeepMind wouldn't fall into the same problem, it would simply take longer to get there.
- close04 7y ago
  > These games have so much more to them than reaction time and dexterity Sure but they're still an important part of the end result which most people don't consider. For many the title just says "AI beats human mind". If you want to know which mind is better then compare minds, all else equal. "Dumb" bots have been kicking player's butts for years now. Not because of intelligence but because everything else was not equal: great aim, great reaction time, great situational awareness. So aren't you curious how much the "intelligence" part evolved? Imagine a 100m sprint where one of the runners has to wear army boots and backpack. Would you even bother drawing a conclusion?
yodon 7y ago
The original technical paper (I posted a link elsewhere in this thread) discusses that the AI only had access to the same visual imagery a human player can access

Kiro 7y ago

They add artificial delay and other handicaps in order to compensate and match human shortcomings.

ctoth 7y ago

Source?

close04 7y ago
> at close range, FTW excelled in combat, in part because its reaction time was half that of a human's, and in part because its accuracy was 80 percent compared to the humans' 50 percent. [0] I see now that reaction time was compensated for. No info on accuracy. [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/googles-ai-group-moves-on-from-go-tackles-quake-iii-arena/?comments=1&unread=1#unread https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/googles-ai-group-mov...

wickoff 7y ago

People said the same thing about DeepMind's SC2 wins. Its actions per minute spiked to inhuman levels briefly and its efficiency and precision of control was nearly perfect. These types of criticisms completely miss the point. People were attempting to build StarCraft agents for 10 years. 50000 actions per minute, complete vision of the entire map, predefined scripted build orders, restrictions on human opponents - nothing worked. A moderately competent player would destroy those old bots in 10 out of 10 games, it wasn't close. These games have so much more to them than reaction time and dexterity, these new agents are doing something that simply wasn't possible before.

jvanderbot 7y ago
Agree. But OP is saying in a battle wits, its hard to factor out the battle of wrists.
Mirioron 7y ago
That's because that AI would always have some exploitable flaws that people pick up on really quickly. I wouldn't be sure that DeepMind wouldn't fall into the same problem, it would simply take longer to get there.
close04 7y ago
> These games have so much more to them than reaction time and dexterity Sure but they're still an important part of the end result which most people don't consider. For many the title just says "AI beats human mind". If you want to know which mind is better then compare minds, all else equal. "Dumb" bots have been kicking player's butts for years now. Not because of intelligence but because everything else was not equal: great aim, great reaction time, great situational awareness. So aren't you curious how much the "intelligence" part evolved? Imagine a 100m sprint where one of the runners has to wear army boots and backpack. Would you even bother drawing a conclusion?

yodon 7y ago

The original technical paper (I posted a link elsewhere in this thread) discusses that the AI only had access to the same visual imagery a human player can access