4 ms·

AlphaStar is APM-limited, which means it can't just rapid-fire click every location on the map. It has to judiciously pick which places to look in the same way

AlphaStar is APM-limited, which means it can't just rapid-fire click every location on the map. It has to judiciously pick which places to look in the same way humans do. (At least that's how it worked for the version they showed last year.)

setr 7y ago
I might be remembering the wrong bot, but iirc it was limited only in average APM, and targetting pro-level average APM. So two immediate and obvious flaws were: 1. It could still burst, with overwhelming APM during combat 2. Pro APM is not the same as bot APM, as humans have far more limited precision, and a lot of human APM is wasted on redundant behavior as a result (eg spam clicking to make sure the order goes through) If its still the same, then the bot probably still has lots of excess APM to burn through without impacting micro performance.
- jplayer01 7y ago
  > Q. How does AlphaStar interact with the game? > A. AlphaStar has built-in restrictions, which cap its effective actions per minute and per second. These caps, including the agents’ peak APM, are more restrictive than DeepMind’s demonstration matches back in January, and have been applied in consultation with pro players.
ergothus 7y ago
> It has to judiciously pick which places to look in the same way humans do There's a lot in that statement that can mislead. It has to "look" - that's true, AFAIK, and is super interesting. But that's not the same as a human. If AlphaStar is watching 5 points of interest on the map, there is basically no chance that it screws that up. For humans, that would involve bouncing between the minimap to commands (assuming we're not talking about hotkeyed locations), which invites lots of dexterity/accuracy issues, not to mention visual comprehension. Do you really think AlphaStar will have issues making out the blur of a cloaked observer? (for example). Consider some blink stalker micro - a human CAN select each unit as it's attacked and blink it to the back of the pack, keeping a steady rotation of fresh shields to tank the damage. But that is error prone, and even the best pros only do it in limited skirmishes. Not because of APM - it's not the raw clicks that are the problem - but because of accuracy and the opportunity costs of the attention. Alphastar won't have accuracy problems, and the opportunity costs of the attention are VERY different from the human costs. I think Alphastar is a great experiment, and I am glad they are cutting off some of the brute force advantages a program has vs a human opponent, but that's not the same as saying it is doing it "the same way humans do".
- tempestn 7y ago
  I suppose if they wanted to, they could pretty easily add a click accuracy limitation as well, and force it to work around that, as with APM and map view.
  - baddox 7y ago
    My prediction is that no matter what limitations you add, some people will always reject the notion that a computer can be competitive with a human at anything that humans are perceived or expected to be uniquely good at. In chess, there were decades of resistance to the idea that computers were truly competitive the best human players in a "fair" match, even though that game has little or no physical component (I suspect this persists to this day). For some people, either there will be endless litigation of every tiny physical difference between the computer and human player that makes it "unfair," or the premise will just be abandoned and we'll hear things like "well, yeah, computers are great at RTS games, but RTS skill isn't really a sign of true intelligence."
    - ergothus 7y ago
      As the objector above, I feel the need to defend myself despite the lack of an attack :) I think you are correct. There will always be those people. I hope I don't fall among them - I raise the distinction about being "like" a human not because I think it's makes a good/bad qualitative difference, but because I'm hoping to avoid such comparisons. To me, far from proving it is "good" or "bad" at the game, AlphaStar is interesting for the behaviors it uncovers that are useful to humans. (example: AlphaStar overloaded workers - a strategy that had been discarded by almost all pro years before, and is now enjoying a reevaluation as a result). Paying attention to how the I/O is different matters to such elements, even if it is pointless in the comparison of "true intelligence". FWIW, when it comes to AI I have a more Minsky-view of things (in my limited understanding) and think that we're comparing apples and oranges without any awareness that its all fruit - we only KNOW apples. I think AlphaStar already has a better understanding of RTS than I do (low bar), even if we ignored the differences. That, however, isn't terribly exciting. AlphaStar showing us new tricks we can use - THAT'S interesting. (And now I want a segmented apple, dangit)
shawnz 7y ago
Are we sure that moving the camera is considered an "action" by the APM limiter? If so then that does indeed change things.
s1artibartfast 7y ago
The version they showed in january had full map visual information, but they focused the camera on region with the most actions. The new version is limited to one screen of information at a time as well as a 350ms reaction time. My question is if it can "click" through all possible screens in 1 ms, then click through each screen 350ms later with a reaction. The other question is what constitutes meaningful APM. If only 20% of human APM meaningful do to redundant clicks and hotkey cycling, what is the appropriate AI APM.
- eric-hu 7y ago
  This is an interesting question. I would expect that to some degree, yes it could cycle through locations of interest to sample multiple spots. Pros do this quite often, so not only would I consider this legal but perhaps necessary for decent skilled play.

setr 7y ago

I might be remembering the wrong bot, but iirc it was limited only in average APM, and targetting pro-level average APM. So two immediate and obvious flaws were: 1. It could still burst, with overwhelming APM during combat 2. Pro APM is not the same as bot APM, as humans have far more limited precision, and a lot of human APM is wasted on redundant behavior as a result (eg spam clicking to make sure the order goes through) If its still the same, then the bot probably still has lots of excess APM to burn through without impacting micro performance.

jplayer01 7y ago
> Q. How does AlphaStar interact with the game? > A. AlphaStar has built-in restrictions, which cap its effective actions per minute and per second. These caps, including the agents’ peak APM, are more restrictive than DeepMind’s demonstration matches back in January, and have been applied in consultation with pro players.

ergothus 7y ago

> It has to judiciously pick which places to look in the same way humans do There's a lot in that statement that can mislead. It has to "look" - that's true, AFAIK, and is super interesting. But that's not the same as a human. If AlphaStar is watching 5 points of interest on the map, there is basically no chance that it screws that up. For humans, that would involve bouncing between the minimap to commands (assuming we're not talking about hotkeyed locations), which invites lots of dexterity/accuracy issues, not to mention visual comprehension. Do you really think AlphaStar will have issues making out the blur of a cloaked observer? (for example). Consider some blink stalker micro - a human CAN select each unit as it's attacked and blink it to the back of the pack, keeping a steady rotation of fresh shields to tank the damage. But that is error prone, and even the best pros only do it in limited skirmishes. Not because of APM - it's not the raw clicks that are the problem - but because of accuracy and the opportunity costs of the attention. Alphastar won't have accuracy problems, and the opportunity costs of the attention are VERY different from the human costs. I think Alphastar is a great experiment, and I am glad they are cutting off some of the brute force advantages a program has vs a human opponent, but that's not the same as saying it is doing it "the same way humans do".

tempestn 7y ago
I suppose if they wanted to, they could pretty easily add a click accuracy limitation as well, and force it to work around that, as with APM and map view.
- baddox 7y ago
  My prediction is that no matter what limitations you add, some people will always reject the notion that a computer can be competitive with a human at anything that humans are perceived or expected to be uniquely good at. In chess, there were decades of resistance to the idea that computers were truly competitive the best human players in a "fair" match, even though that game has little or no physical component (I suspect this persists to this day). For some people, either there will be endless litigation of every tiny physical difference between the computer and human player that makes it "unfair," or the premise will just be abandoned and we'll hear things like "well, yeah, computers are great at RTS games, but RTS skill isn't really a sign of true intelligence."
  - ergothus 7y ago
    As the objector above, I feel the need to defend myself despite the lack of an attack :) I think you are correct. There will always be those people. I hope I don't fall among them - I raise the distinction about being "like" a human not because I think it's makes a good/bad qualitative difference, but because I'm hoping to avoid such comparisons. To me, far from proving it is "good" or "bad" at the game, AlphaStar is interesting for the behaviors it uncovers that are useful to humans. (example: AlphaStar overloaded workers - a strategy that had been discarded by almost all pro years before, and is now enjoying a reevaluation as a result). Paying attention to how the I/O is different matters to such elements, even if it is pointless in the comparison of "true intelligence". FWIW, when it comes to AI I have a more Minsky-view of things (in my limited understanding) and think that we're comparing apples and oranges without any awareness that its all fruit - we only KNOW apples. I think AlphaStar already has a better understanding of RTS than I do (low bar), even if we ignored the differences. That, however, isn't terribly exciting. AlphaStar showing us new tricks we can use - THAT'S interesting. (And now I want a segmented apple, dangit)

shawnz 7y ago

Are we sure that moving the camera is considered an "action" by the APM limiter? If so then that does indeed change things.

s1artibartfast 7y ago

The version they showed in january had full map visual information, but they focused the camera on region with the most actions. The new version is limited to one screen of information at a time as well as a 350ms reaction time. My question is if it can "click" through all possible screens in 1 ms, then click through each screen 350ms later with a reaction. The other question is what constitutes meaningful APM. If only 20% of human APM meaningful do to redundant clicks and hotkey cycling, what is the appropriate AI APM.

eric-hu 7y ago
This is an interesting question. I would expect that to some degree, yes it could cycle through locations of interest to sample multiple spots. Pros do this quite often, so not only would I consider this legal but perhaps necessary for decent skilled play.