9 ms·
It's interesting that AlphaStar was "only" able to get into the top 99.8% of human-level play for StarCraft 2, though. By contrast, AlphaZero was able to surpas
by infinity0 7y ago
It's interesting that AlphaStar was "only" able to get into the top 99.8% of human-level play for StarCraft 2, though. By contrast, AlphaZero was able to surpass human-level play for Go quite easily.
One wonders whether the inherent approach in AlphaStar (supervised learning) can only ever hope to imitate the best, but surpassing the previous best seems to still be a human domain for now, at least in SC2.
- ivalm 7y agoGo has a much, much smaller phase space than SC2. You can't monte carlo search SC, fundamentally the games are approached differently.
- infinity0 7y agoI know. I was responding to this overall thread, which started: > Unfortunately for the article's point, despite a brief moment of viability, even human+computer chess teams are now far outclassed by computers alone. and it then continued: > The top Go player in the world retired saying that he thought he was almost perfect, but then a "superior being" showed him he wasn't even close. I doubt there is a human on the planet that can improve the strength of the best AI at Go. I was making the point that, even though there have been AI advances since the article was written about chess, defeating its immediate point about chess, these advances have also come with their own caveats. ("Oh this technique that beats chess perfectly can't hope to beat Go". "Oh this technique that beats Go perfectly can't hope to beat StarCraft".) These caveats serve to reinforce this article's broader point - that AI has limitations, that humans can complement, and vice versa.