3 ms·

Also, the following paragraph is very misleading: > OpenAI Five won 99.4% of over 7000 games. The players in those remaining percentages played repeated round

Also, the following paragraph is very misleading: > OpenAI Five won 99.4% of over 7000 games. The players in those remaining percentages played repeated rounds against the AI and eventually started winning more often than not. The AI had only one strategy (deathball) and once top-skill-tier players learned how to play against it, they had a >50% chance of winning.

ionforce 7y ago
That's not misleading if it's literally true.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  It's misleading because many people will read that and assume that the AI is nigh-unbeatable by players. But that's only the case against players who haven't played against it before.
  - rictic 7y ago
    FWIW I read it as just meaning that the AI is very impressive, but might or might not be competitive at the highest levels of play. Like, if you took a world-class team and had them play against random opponents I'd be surprised if they lost more than one game in a hundred. In comparison to chess, according to the ELO guidelines where a beginner has an ELO of 800, an average player is ~1500, a professional is ~2200, and only four people have a rating of ~2800, then we'd expect Magnus Carlsen to almost never lose against an average player, and to win around 99% of games against a low tier professional player.
  - gcarvalho 7y ago
    I don’t remember anymore, but were those 7000 matches against high level players? Even the default bots on DotA2 can beat some median and below parties. And they’re very very bad and outdated.
    - sorenn111 7y ago
      Yes, openai 5 played OG who won the international (biggest dota 2 tournament in the world) 2 years in a row. Openai 5 beat them 2 games in a row in a best of 3
      - josefx 7y ago
        As far as I remember it all openai 5 games were not following standard DotA 2 rules of the time. Things like one courier per player instead of players fighting over a single one and the same heroes on both teams. Even I can win a game if I get to set the rules beforehand.
- buzzerbetrayed 7y ago
  Something being literally true but causing people to think something that isn’t true is pretty much the very definition of misleading. You don’t say something is misleading if it isn’t true. You say it is untrue.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

ionforce 7y ago

That's not misleading if it's literally true.

Mirioron 7y ago
It's misleading because many people will read that and assume that the AI is nigh-unbeatable by players. But that's only the case against players who haven't played against it before.
- rictic 7y ago
  FWIW I read it as just meaning that the AI is very impressive, but might or might not be competitive at the highest levels of play. Like, if you took a world-class team and had them play against random opponents I'd be surprised if they lost more than one game in a hundred. In comparison to chess, according to the ELO guidelines where a beginner has an ELO of 800, an average player is ~1500, a professional is ~2200, and only four people have a rating of ~2800, then we'd expect Magnus Carlsen to almost never lose against an average player, and to win around 99% of games against a low tier professional player.
- gcarvalho 7y ago
  I don’t remember anymore, but were those 7000 matches against high level players? Even the default bots on DotA2 can beat some median and below parties. And they’re very very bad and outdated.
  - sorenn111 7y ago
    Yes, openai 5 played OG who won the international (biggest dota 2 tournament in the world) 2 years in a row. Openai 5 beat them 2 games in a row in a best of 3
    - josefx 7y ago
      As far as I remember it all openai 5 games were not following standard DotA 2 rules of the time. Things like one courier per player instead of players fighting over a single one and the same heroes on both teams. Even I can win a game if I get to set the rules beforehand.
buzzerbetrayed 7y ago
Something being literally true but causing people to think something that isn’t true is pretty much the very definition of misleading. You don’t say something is misleading if it isn’t true. You say it is untrue.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]