4 ms·

Neither. Once knowledgeable people get a read on these type of things, they can usually handle it. The OpenAI Dota 2 "team" was open for the public to play -- i

Neither. Once knowledgeable people get a read on these type of things, they can usually handle it. The OpenAI Dota 2 "team" was open for the public to play -- it was certainly very good, but multiple teams beat it, sometimes even multiple times in a row. It was great at cheesy stuff like superhuman Force Staff plays that humans could never reliably pull off, but could be beat through macro pressure.

Buttons840 5y ago
Facebook is hosting a NetHack AI competition I'm watching with interest. I want to see how AIs perform in a challenging environment that's pure decision making with no chance for superhuman performance sneaking in like we've seen with StarCraft and Dota.
sillysaurusx 5y ago
I’m not sure this is true. Humans were unable to beat the bot when playing by the rules the bot trained on. The bot was only trained with a very specific hero pool, and special circumstances such as having a courier for each hero (highly unusual in competitive dota; basically unheard of) which it used to ferry health potions to itself constantly. The humans couldn't deal with this constant source of health regeneration. It was only after the hero pool was expanded to additional heroes that the humans were able to win. But this is like losing because 86 new heroes were just released that day; it would be unfair, to say the least, if you had to face heroes you knew nothing about, especially when your opponents were experts. OpenAI gave up working on it after they had proven that "if you spend $X amount of money, you can win at whatever rules you decide." Unfortunately the cost of $X is very high for this method, because it requires thousands (tens of thousands?) of simulations, each of which need to happen in real time on an actual dota client (i.e. it's running the game). The game rules also change continuously with new patch releases, so the training quickly becomes more or less obsolete, especially if the bot overfits on a particular ruleset. That doesn't change that the bot can overfit on a specific ruleset, which I think is a positive statement: it's quite remarkable, really, that it's possible at all.
- ctchocula 5y ago
  I think GP was exactly right when he said AI is amazing at micro, but that humans could win using macro pressure. Open AI 5 is an incredible achievement, but for Dota players it hasn't solved Dota. The best analogy is probably something like playing a fixed strategy in Poker, but never varying it; your opponents will eventually figure what your strategy is and ways to exploit it. What you mentioned with having a courier for each hero is actually a well-known tactic called "bottle-crow" and was popular in Filipino Dota from 2010-2015. Each support hero would buy a dedicated crow for each lane and a bottle. Then the cores would ferry the bottle to themselves constantly from base, but this tactic got nerfed to death with the change "crow flies at half speed with an empty bottle". You are right that OG didn't deal well with this constant source of health regeneration, but it was largely limited to the laning phase. After the laning phase ends, humans can use their superior macro (i.e. understanding of map movement) which is a definite weakness of the AI. Against the simple AI that comes built-in to Dota 2, you can be behind by a ton and exploit splitpushing against the AI, because doing any structural damage against buildings will force the AI (who are gathered up for a push) back, and you will win if you drag the game sufficiently into the lategame. There are indications that similar tactics can be used against the OpenAI 5, which is bad countering invisible items/heroes and playing against splitpush [1]. Deciding whether or not to continue to push and which heroes to send back to defend is one of the hardest strategic decisions to make in the game, even for humans. The finals of one of the TIs, NaVi vs. Alliance, was lost on getting such a decision wrong. Eliminating some key splitpush heroes minimized the probability that OpenAI 5 would have been forced into having to make such a decision. OpenAI 5 would have lost against OG if any of the following had been satisfied: - had the entire heropool been available (certain natural splitpushing heroes like Furion, Tinker, Phantom Lancer, etc.) - had the series gone long enough for them to uncover AI's weaknesses (which were apparent to the viewers and later teams). OG's captain even explicitly said "Give us 5 games and we will figure it out." - had the prizepool been big enough for OG to take the game seriously enough to warrant picking a splitpushing strategy which is considered "cowardly" in some circles. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/beyilz/openai_live_updates_thread_lessons_on_how_to_beat/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/beyilz/openai_live_u...
  - 5y ago
sitkack 5y ago
I feel like the AIs should be handicapped to have a human level of concurrency and physical reaction time. A bot can pay attention to 50 things in a way a human never could.

Buttons840 5y ago

Facebook is hosting a NetHack AI competition I'm watching with interest. I want to see how AIs perform in a challenging environment that's pure decision making with no chance for superhuman performance sneaking in like we've seen with StarCraft and Dota.

sillysaurusx 5y ago

I’m not sure this is true. Humans were unable to beat the bot when playing by the rules the bot trained on. The bot was only trained with a very specific hero pool, and special circumstances such as having a courier for each hero (highly unusual in competitive dota; basically unheard of) which it used to ferry health potions to itself constantly. The humans couldn't deal with this constant source of health regeneration. It was only after the hero pool was expanded to additional heroes that the humans were able to win. But this is like losing because 86 new heroes were just released that day; it would be unfair, to say the least, if you had to face heroes you knew nothing about, especially when your opponents were experts. OpenAI gave up working on it after they had proven that "if you spend $X amount of money, you can win at whatever rules you decide." Unfortunately the cost of $X is very high for this method, because it requires thousands (tens of thousands?) of simulations, each of which need to happen in real time on an actual dota client (i.e. it's running the game). The game rules also change continuously with new patch releases, so the training quickly becomes more or less obsolete, especially if the bot overfits on a particular ruleset. That doesn't change that the bot can overfit on a specific ruleset, which I think is a positive statement: it's quite remarkable, really, that it's possible at all.

ctchocula 5y ago
I think GP was exactly right when he said AI is amazing at micro, but that humans could win using macro pressure. Open AI 5 is an incredible achievement, but for Dota players it hasn't solved Dota. The best analogy is probably something like playing a fixed strategy in Poker, but never varying it; your opponents will eventually figure what your strategy is and ways to exploit it. What you mentioned with having a courier for each hero is actually a well-known tactic called "bottle-crow" and was popular in Filipino Dota from 2010-2015. Each support hero would buy a dedicated crow for each lane and a bottle. Then the cores would ferry the bottle to themselves constantly from base, but this tactic got nerfed to death with the change "crow flies at half speed with an empty bottle". You are right that OG didn't deal well with this constant source of health regeneration, but it was largely limited to the laning phase. After the laning phase ends, humans can use their superior macro (i.e. understanding of map movement) which is a definite weakness of the AI. Against the simple AI that comes built-in to Dota 2, you can be behind by a ton and exploit splitpushing against the AI, because doing any structural damage against buildings will force the AI (who are gathered up for a push) back, and you will win if you drag the game sufficiently into the lategame. There are indications that similar tactics can be used against the OpenAI 5, which is bad countering invisible items/heroes and playing against splitpush [1]. Deciding whether or not to continue to push and which heroes to send back to defend is one of the hardest strategic decisions to make in the game, even for humans. The finals of one of the TIs, NaVi vs. Alliance, was lost on getting such a decision wrong. Eliminating some key splitpush heroes minimized the probability that OpenAI 5 would have been forced into having to make such a decision. OpenAI 5 would have lost against OG if any of the following had been satisfied: - had the entire heropool been available (certain natural splitpushing heroes like Furion, Tinker, Phantom Lancer, etc.) - had the series gone long enough for them to uncover AI's weaknesses (which were apparent to the viewers and later teams). OG's captain even explicitly said "Give us 5 games and we will figure it out." - had the prizepool been big enough for OG to take the game seriously enough to warrant picking a splitpushing strategy which is considered "cowardly" in some circles. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/beyilz/openai_live_updates_thread_lessons_on_how_to_beat/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/beyilz/openai_live_u...
- 5y ago

sitkack 5y ago

I feel like the AIs should be handicapped to have a human level of concurrency and physical reaction time. A bot can pay attention to 50 things in a way a human never could.