3 ms·

The link includes players with vastly lower winrate and players with high winrates but for extremely low number of games. We need sufficient quantities to clai

The link includes players with vastly lower winrate and players with high winrates but for extremely low number of games. We need sufficient quantities to claim 99% winrate, for highly ranked players even with 200 games(which is still a low number since a single loss can massively affect results) are not even close to 80% winrate. probably with enough games it will be even lower. Maintaining 99% winrate is extremely hard as you can only lose a single game out of 100. people get tired, try new stuff, simply don't pay attention or just get caught off guard by a new thing. As for "malicious exploitation", it does poses a risk in some environments but the question then becomes exactly the same. Is the AI less exploitable than the average person? If so, it doesn't matter.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
> Is the AI less exploitable than the average person? People are generally not exploitable in the same way an AI is because we can subjectively assess situations and learn on the fly. This is a good example of why I think your argument doesn't hold water: https://twitter.com/nikitabier/status/1372726911105855488 https://twitter.com/nikitabier/status/1372726911105855488 On the 99% winrate, I feel like you're either being purposefully obtuse or have no experience with competitive games. Majority of the winrates are >70%, but even 60% is insane for a competitive game especially at the very highest level. It is ridiculously hard to maintain a winrate this high even over 30 games. You seem to be thinking about this from a statistical perspective (I.e. moar samples) without realizing that this is baked into MMR (You're matched with opponents as close to your skill level as possible). These players have to maintain high winrates just to stay at this MMR because they can earn as low as literally 0 MMR for a win and lose up to 60 MMR for a loss. These players are also around 3000 MMR higher than Diamond players. Using the Elo model [0], this equates to a 99.998% winrate. 100 games in a row is also not feasible. That's ~20 hours of playtime assuming 12min games. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/7fc30w/7_orders_of_magnitude_skill_in_sc2/dqaxw2b/ https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/7fc30w/7_orders_...
klmadfejno 6y ago
This is the difference between memorizing a good strategy and thinking strategically. DeepMind does the former. It's still impressive. It will still beat humans. It may still be a route to successfully address many real world business problems. But it's not as noteworthy as implied on the path to AGI.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago

> Is the AI less exploitable than the average person? People are generally not exploitable in the same way an AI is because we can subjectively assess situations and learn on the fly. This is a good example of why I think your argument doesn't hold water: https://twitter.com/nikitabier/status/1372726911105855488 https://twitter.com/nikitabier/status/1372726911105855488 On the 99% winrate, I feel like you're either being purposefully obtuse or have no experience with competitive games. Majority of the winrates are >70%, but even 60% is insane for a competitive game especially at the very highest level. It is ridiculously hard to maintain a winrate this high even over 30 games. You seem to be thinking about this from a statistical perspective (I.e. moar samples) without realizing that this is baked into MMR (You're matched with opponents as close to your skill level as possible). These players have to maintain high winrates just to stay at this MMR because they can earn as low as literally 0 MMR for a win and lose up to 60 MMR for a loss. These players are also around 3000 MMR higher than Diamond players. Using the Elo model [0], this equates to a 99.998% winrate. 100 games in a row is also not feasible. That's ~20 hours of playtime assuming 12min games. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/7fc30w/7_orders_of_magnitude_skill_in_sc2/dqaxw2b/ https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/7fc30w/7_orders_...

klmadfejno 6y ago

This is the difference between memorizing a good strategy and thinking strategically. DeepMind does the former. It's still impressive. It will still beat humans. It may still be a route to successfully address many real world business problems. But it's not as noteworthy as implied on the path to AGI.