7 ms·

... in a standardized test that has nothing do to with real enemy encounters - the complete title. We've seen this before, even for a lot more limited and cont

... in a standardized test that has nothing do to with real enemy encounters - the complete title. We've seen this before, even for a lot more limited and controlled environment like the game Dota the "AI" can beat the humans a few times before the humans learns to exploit it's many weaknesses. Some program that self learned a (admittedly impressive) number of reactions based on seeing/playing a huge number of simulations is not intelligence so not AI. It cannot reason on the spot and will fall for the most ridiculous of traps. For example the AI that beat the professional Dota players fell for running in circles around a tower forever while getting slowly damaged to death. Even the most simple of mammals (which we do not consider intelligent) would react to the pain at some point and bolt. My theory is that AI will not exist until we reach AGI. Because with specialized AI you can always fall outside it's area of "expertise" and behave like a stupid bot.

me_me_me 6y ago
As much as I agree with your assessment. You only get ONE chance to beat AI in real life dogfight. So you better make sure that your strategy to exploit AI is going to work.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  Ejection is a thing. At this point it’s also about who has better missiles and more of them. The USAF missiles will make guns obsolete doctrine of the 1960’s was premature not completely wrong.
  - t0mas88 6y ago
    It's almost always about who has better missiles and longer range radar/sensors. No point in getting into a dogfight if you can shoot the opponent out of the sky from 100 miles away.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      Until it isn't, because the enemy has already captured and compromised your government back home.
    - LandR 6y ago
      There is probably a way they know his, but can you really fire a missile at something on a computer screen miles away and be fully confident the thing you are shooting at is enemy military aircraft? And not say a civilian aircraft ? I guess if its going fast enough its almost certianly a military aircraft. Can the radars in the military jets identity the type of the aircraft before it gets blown out of the sky?
      - Pelic4n 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe
        DuskStar 6y ago
        That lets you distinguish friend from not-friend, but not enemy from airliner.
      - DuskStar 6y ago
        Another way is to announce a no-fly zone and then assume anything within the zone is hostile. (Yes, civilian planes can still fly there, but they've literally been warned at that point) I assume this would happen pretty quickly when a war went hot.
      - greedo 6y ago
        Radars on the F-15 can determine the type of turbine on an aircraft...
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      In general yes you can make that distinction but more importantly this is a problem for peace time. No one would authorize a non-visual shoot down of a target in a non-active AO and not during an actual conflict. If you are at the stage where you have factions duking it out in the skies especially these days were talking about a major conflict in which case there won’t be any civilian jets flying there anyhow.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  This is why people train. Once AI piloted planes are prevalent on the battlefield, there will be a huge effort to capture enemy systems and develop tactics against them. The USA has been doing it for decades (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Doughnut https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Doughnut), I’m sure that China and Russia have as well.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    But how do you know which version of AI are you fighting? Its not really all that simple, as you have limited time/resources to determine what exactly you are up against. And you get to test your hypothesis once. You win or lose after that.
    - parsimo2010 6y ago
      The biggest thing you seem to be missing is that none of your arguments are unique to fighting AI. You still only get one chance against a human pilot. You don't know how good they are individually, you don't know if they have any special tricks, and you don't know whether they've got all the available upgrades on their jet, or if they have some old or broken equipment. You do know the average skill level of the enemy pilots, and what equipment they might have, so you make your decisions by assuming that they are a competent pilot with the best equipment that is likely to be on that jet. Warfare still happens even when you don't have time to gather up perfect information and make a perfect decision. One other thing to note is that there will not be a unique AI in every individual jet; that would be impossible to maintain. There will be one version rolled out to each type of jet, maybe with a few customization options that can be changed during mission planning. When a new AI version comes out of testing it will get rolled out to every plane in the fleet that has the required computing power- some jets used for training/reserve/national guard duties won't have the latest hardware upgrades and won't get the newest version. So a pilot will be able to ID a jet, know where it is generally strong and weak, and then try to target the enemy's weakness while avoiding the strengths. Sometimes they'll lose, but once enough people have survived encounters with AI jets (either from exploiting stolen jets or from plain old combat) the best practices will get pushed to the other squadrons. Just like what already happens.
- trabant00 6y ago
  That's now how wars work. You get time to learn and adapt to the enemy strategy. One plane down doesn't mean anything if you learn how to exploit the enemy's entire fleet of "AI" with 1 casualty.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    In case of a prolonged conflict you need to consider the AI and it's programmers as a joint system. The AI by itself may be exploitable, but the programmers will adjust it to counter anti-ai strategies.
    - salawat 6y ago
      We don't program what are called AI's nowadays. We curate data, sometimes supervise the learning process, and do our best to detect when a model is bad. If you think there's any intention or well defined predictability to these things, I've got a bridge to sell ya.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    "That's not how previous wars worked" would be a more accurate take. Considering how few aircraft there are in modern militaries and how long it takes to manufacture modern fighter aircraft and missiles, one side will be out of high tech aircraft/missiles before the other and then it's game over.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      This is one of those things I kind of wonder about the reality of. It's absolutely true that you're unlikely to be able to manufacture a lot of what you'll use during the war. But simultaneously, it's not like the United States is really trying to fix this problem. The modern generation fighter aircraft are boondoggles with massively inefficient manufacturing designed to win senators and congresspeople votes - not act as the backbone of a hardened supply chain. They're being built the way they are because the US doesn't seriously expect to face any enemy who can substantially deplete its forces, or is going to have any ability to strike the mainland. My suspicion is that if there was an actual belief in the need to have reliable supply lines, it could be done and manufacturing could be streamlined a lot. You could definitely imagine a nearly fully automated factory rolling these things off very quickly.
gwd 6y ago
> Some program that self learned a (admittedly impressive) number of reactions based on seeing/playing a huge number of simulations is not intelligence so not AI. Is this really that different than what humans do? After watching dozens of AlphaStar commentary videos [1] over the last few months, I was more or less thinking the same thing: the AI has basically evolved a massive ruleset: "Do X. If you see Y, do Z." Nonetheless, I decided to start playing again myself. Poking around, I saw a recommendation to go through one guy's sort of "training course" [2], and guess what? A lot of it comes down to the same kind of thing. "Send your first overlord to scout their natural. If they haven't expanded to their natural, build one -- ONE -- spine crawler in your natural." How much of our "intelligence" is really anything more than pattern matching + search? And during the actual dogfight, how much of what the human pilot was doing was anything more than simply pattern matching from their own vast experience racked up in a simulator? [1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVRQoOk_ltE3Fr1ofRE0Y1JhowMBb2WOg https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVRQoOk_ltE3Fr1ofRE0Y... [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFeZeom2b4Dlt63qmkPO8hCencx-rE8xr https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFeZeom2b4Dlt63qmkPO8...
- trabant00 6y ago
  > Is this really that different than what humans do? Yes, we have built in mechanism that react to situations we never encountered before. You will never be able to simply sit calmly while something is damaging you for example.
  - phaemon 6y ago
    Reacting to damage is something you learned in previous generations. You've encountered that situation billions of times (you just don't remember them).
- 1123581321 6y ago
  We are quite different as we can evaluate new situations based on our understanding of the principles behind something like a build order in Starcraft.
- Retric 6y ago
jmnicolas 6y ago
I'm not an expert but I think in the future you will have swarm of drones against another swarm of drones. No human involved (in the air at least). The best algorithm will win the war. People stop bullying your nerds at school if you don't want to loose your next war ;)
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  Yes, only thing is... usually it does not work that way in reality, and when they breech enemy defense drones, they will continue with a quick genocide.
- trabant00 6y ago
  > I think in the future you will have swarm of drones against another swarm of drones Unless the swarms are easily exploitable like the current "AI"s.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > I'm not an expert but I think in the future you will have swarm of drones against another swarm of drones. Unlikely. You will rather a swarm of drones against an enemy that has no such technology. A country that can have a swarm of drones would very likely also have nuclear weapons and deterrence is a thing.
  - 3pt14159 6y ago
    Canada isn't going to be building nuclear weapons ever again[0], but we're going to have drone swarms. They don't melt the face off of a bunch of civilians. They can selectively target. They're cheap. [0] Most people don't know this but Canada is one of the few countries that built nukes (in conjunction with America and the UK) and then gave them up. I think we still technically own the seven nukes, but America is in possession of them.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    IIRC Daech is using swarms of drones against the Russian air base in Syria (they probably don't have AI inside though). I think AI powered swarm of drones is certainly feasible for a small team of motivated engineers and modest funding. The thing that would let them at a disadvantage is the quality or lack thereof of their missiles guidance system.
jjcon 6y ago
> It cannot reason on the spot and will fall for the most ridiculous of traps. > My theory is that AI will not exist until we reach AGI. You are confusing the definition of AI for AGI so of course you think that. AI doesn’t need to have true understanding to be considered AI, it just has to have the appearance of intelligence.
thieving_magpie 6y ago
>We've seen this before, even for a lot more limited and controlled environment like the game Dota the "AI" can beat the humans a few times before the humans learns to exploit it's many weaknesses. I recall that there was AI beating top Dota players. I'm not familiar with humans figuring out the AI and exploiting weaknesses. Every search I've done just shows articles about the AI winning. By chance do you know where I can read up on humans figuring out the weaknesses of the AI?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
  https://openai.com/blog/more-on-dota-2/ https://openai.com/blog/more-on-dota-2/ mentions some of the strategies to beat the bots. You can also check the ml subreddit for discussions of exploits: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bfq8v9/d_openai_five_vs_humans_currently_at_410633_992/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bfq8v9/d_o... https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6t58ks/n_openai_bot_beat_best_dota_2_players_in_1v1_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6t58ks/n_o... https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bcumrs/d_openai_5_vs_dota_2_world_champions_happening_now/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bcumrs/d_o... https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6u304t/n_more_on_dota_2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6u304t/n_m... I also recall a post from one of the pros talking about his strategies to try and beat them but I can't find it.
- trabant00 6y ago
  After AI beat 1v1 the top players they gave it to casuals at the international if I remember correctly: https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6t8qvs/openai_bots_were_defeated_atleast_50_times/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6t8qvs/openai_bots_w... > The general strategy is to win by claiming first tower. At 0:00, you aggro the enemy creep wave so that they start following you. Then you walk around in a circle around the jungle, and the enemy wave will start to form a congo line that will follow you around. You then path around the jungle so that on the next wave spawn, you can aggro the wave again and continue to walk around in circles. The AI will burn glyph when your creep wave hits the tower, and for some reason it can't really decide between chasing you or defending the tower. So after about 5 minutes of doing this, your creep waves will eventually destroy the tower and you win the 1v1.
lordnacho 6y ago
I think there's value in having a huge learning set, but there are also limitations, as you're alluding to. But I also don't think we're miles away from computers learning some sort of reasoning structure. Some sort of causality-type thinking where you have hierarchies which at some level are reasonably simple, because humans can only fit so much. But when the computers figure it out, they don't have that problem. At the moment, yes, there's a huge corpus of patterns and you can make some smart decisions just by being able to learn from the huge library, but it's the difference between knowing that one move tends to beat another, without knowing the why. For instance in sports, you have man-marking vs zone-marking. The naive thing to do is just tabulate how often a team did one or the other vs how often they won. Then break it down even more by who they were facing and various stats. But if you don't have a theory of marking, you're a bit lost for explanation, even if the tabulation clearly says zone marking tends to win. A causal explanation might sound something like "man marking allows the other team to pull you out of shape and gives them the choice of which players face which". It might also tell you that sometimes it's actually smarter to man-mark, eg when there's some player you really feel is dominant and needs to be taken out. I gather that people are working on this causality type AI though, so no doubt we'll see something interesting soon.
lavoiems 6y ago
Without a clear definition of AI that everyone agrees on, we will never reach AI. If an AI is considered intelligent only if it is "General", then are we, as human, even intelligent? I would argue strongly that we are missing the 'G'.
jkinudsjknds 6y ago
Most RTS AI algorithms are handicapped to make them "fair" because what we're trying to evaluate is whether the AI can win with superior strategy on equal footing. They can decimate even the best human players if they're given full access to the controls. It's just not interesting because obviously the machine can win if it has magnitudes higher rates of decision making and inputs. It's likely not accurate to say that the humans lose just "a few times" to the AI either before learning to exploit it. Many won't learn the right behaviors for a long time, if ever, and you don't get multiple chances in life or death combat. It's extremely naive to think that AI fighter pilots wouldn't be able to beat real fighter pilots. There's entire sets of new tactics available to AI pilots that human pilots are fundamentally incapable of performing due to reaction time, physiological constraints, stress, awareness, multi-tasking, etc.
andreilys 6y ago
> "Some program that self learned a (admittedly impressive) number of reactions based on seeing/playing a huge number of simulations is not intelligence so not AI." Seems like with every breakthrough the goalpost of AI gets moved. I believe a researcher coined a phrase for this but I can't remember what it was.
- jmkjaer 6y ago
  > I believe a researcher coined a phrase for this but I can't remember what it was. There's an article on Wikipedia called "AI effect", I don't know if that's what you had in mind. https://en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/AI_effect
- therealjumbo 6y ago
  It doesn't get moved so much as we discover that a certain mathematical manipulation plus all our previous mathematical manipulations don't amount to an AI. It also seems like with every breakthrough this complaint is raised without addressing the underlying issues with the new AIs shortcomings. My hot take: true AI is so far out of reach of our ability it's not even funny, which makes the whole field either a search for the fountain of youth at worst, or at best a search for tools to inform humans or to replace humans in rote tasks. See https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0 https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0
- trabant00 6y ago
  Ummm, no? AI means a clear thing: artificial _intelligence_. Depth-first search is not intelligence. Auto-generated algorithms that succeed on most of the training data is not intelligence. And that is obvious from the errors "AI" makes that a human would never do. For example, would you fool even a child with this? https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/s4DuKgTLnS4cngTyiqVkNC-970-80.jpg https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/s4DuKgTLnS4cngTyiqVkNC-970...
  - joycian 6y ago
    Someday, this line of argument is going to conclude that humans are not intelligent.
lowbloodsugar 6y ago
>Dota the "AI" can beat the humans a few times before the humans learns to exploit it's many weaknesses Lets retry this experiment but the loser of any games get shot in the head, and the next player only gets basic telemetry while also shitting themselves. A human Dota player with a gun pointed at him will likely perform differently too. Note that the AI player doesn't get killed if it loses, because it is software. It just doesn't get full telemetry and diagnostics.
visarga 6y ago
Yes, they are all specialised AIs but we make them so fast nowadays that it doesn't matter they don't generalise yet, we can have as many as we want and they can be really useful in many fields. ImageNet can be trained in 30 seconds from scratch, and fine tuning takes just a few extra epochs. We don't need to wait for AGI, most low hanging fruit have not been picked yet.
- trabant00 6y ago
  Not sayin they are not useful. They are. But they are bots. Not AI.
Veedrac 6y ago
OpenAI Five lost just 42 out of 7,257 matches. It's true that it has exploitable weaknesses, but it did not simply fall apart.

me_me_me 6y ago

As much as I agree with your assessment. You only get ONE chance to beat AI in real life dogfight. So you better make sure that your strategy to exploit AI is going to work.

dogma1138 6y ago
Ejection is a thing. At this point it’s also about who has better missiles and more of them. The USAF missiles will make guns obsolete doctrine of the 1960’s was premature not completely wrong.
- t0mas88 6y ago
  It's almost always about who has better missiles and longer range radar/sensors. No point in getting into a dogfight if you can shoot the opponent out of the sky from 100 miles away.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Until it isn't, because the enemy has already captured and compromised your government back home.
  - LandR 6y ago
    There is probably a way they know his, but can you really fire a missile at something on a computer screen miles away and be fully confident the thing you are shooting at is enemy military aircraft? And not say a civilian aircraft ? I guess if its going fast enough its almost certianly a military aircraft. Can the radars in the military jets identity the type of the aircraft before it gets blown out of the sky?
    - Pelic4n 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe
      - DuskStar 6y ago
        That lets you distinguish friend from not-friend, but not enemy from airliner.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      Another way is to announce a no-fly zone and then assume anything within the zone is hostile. (Yes, civilian planes can still fly there, but they've literally been warned at that point) I assume this would happen pretty quickly when a war went hot.
    - greedo 6y ago
      Radars on the F-15 can determine the type of turbine on an aircraft...
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    In general yes you can make that distinction but more importantly this is a problem for peace time. No one would authorize a non-visual shoot down of a target in a non-active AO and not during an actual conflict. If you are at the stage where you have factions duking it out in the skies especially these days were talking about a major conflict in which case there won’t be any civilian jets flying there anyhow.
parsimo2010 6y ago
This is why people train. Once AI piloted planes are prevalent on the battlefield, there will be a huge effort to capture enemy systems and develop tactics against them. The USA has been doing it for decades (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Doughnut https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Doughnut), I’m sure that China and Russia have as well.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  But how do you know which version of AI are you fighting? Its not really all that simple, as you have limited time/resources to determine what exactly you are up against. And you get to test your hypothesis once. You win or lose after that.
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    The biggest thing you seem to be missing is that none of your arguments are unique to fighting AI. You still only get one chance against a human pilot. You don't know how good they are individually, you don't know if they have any special tricks, and you don't know whether they've got all the available upgrades on their jet, or if they have some old or broken equipment. You do know the average skill level of the enemy pilots, and what equipment they might have, so you make your decisions by assuming that they are a competent pilot with the best equipment that is likely to be on that jet. Warfare still happens even when you don't have time to gather up perfect information and make a perfect decision. One other thing to note is that there will not be a unique AI in every individual jet; that would be impossible to maintain. There will be one version rolled out to each type of jet, maybe with a few customization options that can be changed during mission planning. When a new AI version comes out of testing it will get rolled out to every plane in the fleet that has the required computing power- some jets used for training/reserve/national guard duties won't have the latest hardware upgrades and won't get the newest version. So a pilot will be able to ID a jet, know where it is generally strong and weak, and then try to target the enemy's weakness while avoiding the strengths. Sometimes they'll lose, but once enough people have survived encounters with AI jets (either from exploiting stolen jets or from plain old combat) the best practices will get pushed to the other squadrons. Just like what already happens.
trabant00 6y ago
That's now how wars work. You get time to learn and adapt to the enemy strategy. One plane down doesn't mean anything if you learn how to exploit the enemy's entire fleet of "AI" with 1 casualty.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  In case of a prolonged conflict you need to consider the AI and it's programmers as a joint system. The AI by itself may be exploitable, but the programmers will adjust it to counter anti-ai strategies.
  - salawat 6y ago
    We don't program what are called AI's nowadays. We curate data, sometimes supervise the learning process, and do our best to detect when a model is bad. If you think there's any intention or well defined predictability to these things, I've got a bridge to sell ya.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  "That's not how previous wars worked" would be a more accurate take. Considering how few aircraft there are in modern militaries and how long it takes to manufacture modern fighter aircraft and missiles, one side will be out of high tech aircraft/missiles before the other and then it's game over.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    This is one of those things I kind of wonder about the reality of. It's absolutely true that you're unlikely to be able to manufacture a lot of what you'll use during the war. But simultaneously, it's not like the United States is really trying to fix this problem. The modern generation fighter aircraft are boondoggles with massively inefficient manufacturing designed to win senators and congresspeople votes - not act as the backbone of a hardened supply chain. They're being built the way they are because the US doesn't seriously expect to face any enemy who can substantially deplete its forces, or is going to have any ability to strike the mainland. My suspicion is that if there was an actual belief in the need to have reliable supply lines, it could be done and manufacturing could be streamlined a lot. You could definitely imagine a nearly fully automated factory rolling these things off very quickly.

gwd 6y ago

> Some program that self learned a (admittedly impressive) number of reactions based on seeing/playing a huge number of simulations is not intelligence so not AI. Is this really that different than what humans do? After watching dozens of AlphaStar commentary videos [1] over the last few months, I was more or less thinking the same thing: the AI has basically evolved a massive ruleset: "Do X. If you see Y, do Z." Nonetheless, I decided to start playing again myself. Poking around, I saw a recommendation to go through one guy's sort of "training course" [2], and guess what? A lot of it comes down to the same kind of thing. "Send your first overlord to scout their natural. If they haven't expanded to their natural, build one -- ONE -- spine crawler in your natural." How much of our "intelligence" is really anything more than pattern matching + search? And during the actual dogfight, how much of what the human pilot was doing was anything more than simply pattern matching from their own vast experience racked up in a simulator? [1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVRQoOk_ltE3Fr1ofRE0Y1JhowMBb2WOg https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVRQoOk_ltE3Fr1ofRE0Y... [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFeZeom2b4Dlt63qmkPO8hCencx-rE8xr https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFeZeom2b4Dlt63qmkPO8...

trabant00 6y ago
> Is this really that different than what humans do? Yes, we have built in mechanism that react to situations we never encountered before. You will never be able to simply sit calmly while something is damaging you for example.
- phaemon 6y ago
  Reacting to damage is something you learned in previous generations. You've encountered that situation billions of times (you just don't remember them).
1123581321 6y ago
We are quite different as we can evaluate new situations based on our understanding of the principles behind something like a build order in Starcraft.
Retric 6y ago

jmnicolas 6y ago

I'm not an expert but I think in the future you will have swarm of drones against another swarm of drones. No human involved (in the air at least). The best algorithm will win the war. People stop bullying your nerds at school if you don't want to loose your next war ;)

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
Yes, only thing is... usually it does not work that way in reality, and when they breech enemy defense drones, they will continue with a quick genocide.
trabant00 6y ago
> I think in the future you will have swarm of drones against another swarm of drones Unless the swarms are easily exploitable like the current "AI"s.
ekianjo 6y ago
> I'm not an expert but I think in the future you will have swarm of drones against another swarm of drones. Unlikely. You will rather a swarm of drones against an enemy that has no such technology. A country that can have a swarm of drones would very likely also have nuclear weapons and deterrence is a thing.
- 3pt14159 6y ago
  Canada isn't going to be building nuclear weapons ever again[0], but we're going to have drone swarms. They don't melt the face off of a bunch of civilians. They can selectively target. They're cheap. [0] Most people don't know this but Canada is one of the few countries that built nukes (in conjunction with America and the UK) and then gave them up. I think we still technically own the seven nukes, but America is in possession of them.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  IIRC Daech is using swarms of drones against the Russian air base in Syria (they probably don't have AI inside though). I think AI powered swarm of drones is certainly feasible for a small team of motivated engineers and modest funding. The thing that would let them at a disadvantage is the quality or lack thereof of their missiles guidance system.

jjcon 6y ago

> It cannot reason on the spot and will fall for the most ridiculous of traps. > My theory is that AI will not exist until we reach AGI. You are confusing the definition of AI for AGI so of course you think that. AI doesn’t need to have true understanding to be considered AI, it just has to have the appearance of intelligence.

thieving_magpie 6y ago

>We've seen this before, even for a lot more limited and controlled environment like the game Dota the "AI" can beat the humans a few times before the humans learns to exploit it's many weaknesses. I recall that there was AI beating top Dota players. I'm not familiar with humans figuring out the AI and exploiting weaknesses. Every search I've done just shows articles about the AI winning. By chance do you know where I can read up on humans figuring out the weaknesses of the AI?

ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
https://openai.com/blog/more-on-dota-2/ https://openai.com/blog/more-on-dota-2/ mentions some of the strategies to beat the bots. You can also check the ml subreddit for discussions of exploits: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bfq8v9/d_openai_five_vs_humans_currently_at_410633_992/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bfq8v9/d_o... https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6t58ks/n_openai_bot_beat_best_dota_2_players_in_1v1_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6t58ks/n_o... https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bcumrs/d_openai_5_vs_dota_2_world_champions_happening_now/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bcumrs/d_o... https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6u304t/n_more_on_dota_2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6u304t/n_m... I also recall a post from one of the pros talking about his strategies to try and beat them but I can't find it.
trabant00 6y ago
After AI beat 1v1 the top players they gave it to casuals at the international if I remember correctly: https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6t8qvs/openai_bots_were_defeated_atleast_50_times/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/6t8qvs/openai_bots_w... > The general strategy is to win by claiming first tower. At 0:00, you aggro the enemy creep wave so that they start following you. Then you walk around in a circle around the jungle, and the enemy wave will start to form a congo line that will follow you around. You then path around the jungle so that on the next wave spawn, you can aggro the wave again and continue to walk around in circles. The AI will burn glyph when your creep wave hits the tower, and for some reason it can't really decide between chasing you or defending the tower. So after about 5 minutes of doing this, your creep waves will eventually destroy the tower and you win the 1v1.

lordnacho 6y ago

I think there's value in having a huge learning set, but there are also limitations, as you're alluding to. But I also don't think we're miles away from computers learning some sort of reasoning structure. Some sort of causality-type thinking where you have hierarchies which at some level are reasonably simple, because humans can only fit so much. But when the computers figure it out, they don't have that problem. At the moment, yes, there's a huge corpus of patterns and you can make some smart decisions just by being able to learn from the huge library, but it's the difference between knowing that one move tends to beat another, without knowing the why. For instance in sports, you have man-marking vs zone-marking. The naive thing to do is just tabulate how often a team did one or the other vs how often they won. Then break it down even more by who they were facing and various stats. But if you don't have a theory of marking, you're a bit lost for explanation, even if the tabulation clearly says zone marking tends to win. A causal explanation might sound something like "man marking allows the other team to pull you out of shape and gives them the choice of which players face which". It might also tell you that sometimes it's actually smarter to man-mark, eg when there's some player you really feel is dominant and needs to be taken out. I gather that people are working on this causality type AI though, so no doubt we'll see something interesting soon.

lavoiems 6y ago

Without a clear definition of AI that everyone agrees on, we will never reach AI. If an AI is considered intelligent only if it is "General", then are we, as human, even intelligent? I would argue strongly that we are missing the 'G'.

jkinudsjknds 6y ago

Most RTS AI algorithms are handicapped to make them "fair" because what we're trying to evaluate is whether the AI can win with superior strategy on equal footing. They can decimate even the best human players if they're given full access to the controls. It's just not interesting because obviously the machine can win if it has magnitudes higher rates of decision making and inputs. It's likely not accurate to say that the humans lose just "a few times" to the AI either before learning to exploit it. Many won't learn the right behaviors for a long time, if ever, and you don't get multiple chances in life or death combat. It's extremely naive to think that AI fighter pilots wouldn't be able to beat real fighter pilots. There's entire sets of new tactics available to AI pilots that human pilots are fundamentally incapable of performing due to reaction time, physiological constraints, stress, awareness, multi-tasking, etc.

andreilys 6y ago

> "Some program that self learned a (admittedly impressive) number of reactions based on seeing/playing a huge number of simulations is not intelligence so not AI." Seems like with every breakthrough the goalpost of AI gets moved. I believe a researcher coined a phrase for this but I can't remember what it was.

jmkjaer 6y ago
> I believe a researcher coined a phrase for this but I can't remember what it was. There's an article on Wikipedia called "AI effect", I don't know if that's what you had in mind. https://en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/AI_effect
therealjumbo 6y ago
It doesn't get moved so much as we discover that a certain mathematical manipulation plus all our previous mathematical manipulations don't amount to an AI. It also seems like with every breakthrough this complaint is raised without addressing the underlying issues with the new AIs shortcomings. My hot take: true AI is so far out of reach of our ability it's not even funny, which makes the whole field either a search for the fountain of youth at worst, or at best a search for tools to inform humans or to replace humans in rote tasks. See https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0 https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0
trabant00 6y ago
Ummm, no? AI means a clear thing: artificial _intelligence_. Depth-first search is not intelligence. Auto-generated algorithms that succeed on most of the training data is not intelligence. And that is obvious from the errors "AI" makes that a human would never do. For example, would you fool even a child with this? https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/s4DuKgTLnS4cngTyiqVkNC-970-80.jpg https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/s4DuKgTLnS4cngTyiqVkNC-970...
- joycian 6y ago
  Someday, this line of argument is going to conclude that humans are not intelligent.

lowbloodsugar 6y ago

>Dota the "AI" can beat the humans a few times before the humans learns to exploit it's many weaknesses Lets retry this experiment but the loser of any games get shot in the head, and the next player only gets basic telemetry while also shitting themselves. A human Dota player with a gun pointed at him will likely perform differently too. Note that the AI player doesn't get killed if it loses, because it is software. It just doesn't get full telemetry and diagnostics.

visarga 6y ago

Yes, they are all specialised AIs but we make them so fast nowadays that it doesn't matter they don't generalise yet, we can have as many as we want and they can be really useful in many fields. ImageNet can be trained in 30 seconds from scratch, and fine tuning takes just a few extra epochs. We don't need to wait for AGI, most low hanging fruit have not been picked yet.

trabant00 6y ago
Not sayin they are not useful. They are. But they are bots. Not AI.

Veedrac 6y ago

OpenAI Five lost just 42 out of 7,257 matches. It's true that it has exploitable weaknesses, but it did not simply fall apart.