4 ms·

Very interesting! Shows how much AI is over-hyped (even though, as you say, it was very impressive anyway). It was even worse in case of Starcraft 2, where the

Very interesting! Shows how much AI is over-hyped (even though, as you say, it was very impressive anyway). It was even worse in case of Starcraft 2, where the AI had a much wider view than humans, and while the AI was supposed to show its strategic superiority, by limiting the APM (actions per minute), the limit was still very high, inspired by the max APM achieved by humans - whereas this max is achieved only for a very short period of time (a single minute), and consists mostly of insignificant click spam (had APM been limited to half that for humans, the effect would probably be negligible, and very minor for a quarter...). So as a result the AI would win by being able to micro-manage more units, rather than having a better strategy. But again, it was very impressive anyway.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
How do you have 'over-hyped' and 'very impressive' in same sentence. Which is it? I think you are not giving AlphaStar the correct spin. They came back and changed it to only have the same viewport as the human, it could not see all of its units simultaneously, it had to move the cameras like a human. BUT importantly, it NEVER had perfect information. It could only see exactly the same as the human, just at one point they were letting it see the whole map without changing the camera, but it still could not see enemy units without sending a probe. And. Little unsure on what the argument about APM is saying. It was slowed down to match the human speed, but somehow that makes it less impressive? That is just making it more 'human-like'. Kind of like people today want to put guardrails on AI, but if it was unleashed, it beats them easily. That isn't a knock on the AI. The AI would still have to think about every move, and form a strategy. They slowed it down to human level inputs, handicapped it, to make it playable to a human. But to your point, if AI could make 400 APM and human had 400 APM (both limited to same), then that is better measure about the 'thought' behind each individual move. I still remember watching one match where the human was winning, the AI was down, and the AI really did fight back very aggressively from a loosing position, like a human. by expanding and adapting, and it looked very scary.
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  > How do you have 'over-hyped' and 'very impressive' in same sentence. Which is it? I'm stunned; how would you think they are contradictory? Imagine a transportation that moves with the speed of 1000 km/h. Very impressive, right? Now imagine media everywhere say it moves with the speed of light. Wouldn't this be over-hyping? > BUT importantly, it NEVER had perfect information. It could only see exactly the same as the human Maybe we're speaking about different events... In the one I'm commenting on, the AI had some zoom-out, I think 2x (meaning it would see 4 times more at once). Yes it had fog of war, but a zoom out like this is a very significant advantage. > And. Little unsure on what the argument about APM is saying. It was slowed down to match the human speed, No it wasn't, not exactly. Imagine that you measure a human racer speed in km/minute, every minute. Then you take the highest measured "average per minute", and program AI to move with that speed at all times. Then you praise AI for its pathfinding algorithm, because using that speed, it beats the human racers. Yes, if a human racer has to slow down, because e.g. the human is unable to avoid obstacles at maximum speed, it does make the AI being able to move faster, impressive. But few people here would be impressed by a high reflex of a computer, because we all are used to the fact computers can react much faster than humans. It is misleading, however, to allow AI to move faster, and then give it the "spin", as you say, that the AI has won because it was smart, as opposed to being fast. BTW, I think the AI was either only using one race, or was playing only against one race. This one thing was actually mentioned in the event (once). The APM was mentioned too, I think, but the nuance I describe unfortunately wasn't mentioned. It makes me sad, because as I said, it is a very impressive technology. But it's hard to fully appreciate something when it is so blatantly over-hyped and when you see so many people around you being mislead and praising AI for achievements that it didn't exactly accomplish.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    You are correct, there were limits on the AI in the event. It could only play 1 race, but I think the opposition could be different races. I think it was protoss, but it was playing terrans and zerg. There might have been 1 or 2 units that were also removed. In the first events where it was really dominant. It could see the whole map at once, and move its units all over the map by seeing it all. So moving units on both sides of the map practically simultaneously. BUT, this was called out as just too much of an advantage, so they made another version that actually had to move the camera around the map like a human. And the second version was still able to perform. Map wise though, for AI, I think the dealing with the fog of war and un-known/imperfect information was the big break through. Not the map size or speed. It still had to scout, and keep up with enemy movements that were hidden, and anticipate. The zoom out didn't provide that. I'm not totally buying the APM argument (but by end of the paragraph I do). Even if a computer can move 'faster', each move must mean something, do something worthwhile. So the computer must think out its moves. I know micro in SC2 is very big deal, and speed is essential, but you do have to know what to micro. The computer having 1000+ APM was called out also, and they added a limit. By throttling the AI to what a human can do, is handicapping the AI which isn't proving that AI isn't as good, it is showing that it can be better. Or another way, in Chess or GO, there is a time limit, but nobody is throttling the AI CPU to the same speed as a human brain, like limiting its computation cycles. So, guess in end, I do agree, throttling APM is like a real time imposing a time limit to each move, like in Chess. For Over-Hype/Impressive point. It is difficult. Both can be true. And everyone on the internet has different thresholds for what they think is over-hype and what is impressive. AI seems overwhelmed with both sides right now. Seemingly new miracles every day, and also over-hyped companies pumping their stock by adding an AI sticker to every product. I just say, those AlphaStar matches were like 5 years ago, and they still blow me away. Hard to imagine what could be possible, with this latest release in this post from deepmind. Plug into a camera, on a robot, with a gun, and tell it the world is just a 3d game.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

How do you have 'over-hyped' and 'very impressive' in same sentence. Which is it? I think you are not giving AlphaStar the correct spin. They came back and changed it to only have the same viewport as the human, it could not see all of its units simultaneously, it had to move the cameras like a human. BUT importantly, it NEVER had perfect information. It could only see exactly the same as the human, just at one point they were letting it see the whole map without changing the camera, but it still could not see enemy units without sending a probe. And. Little unsure on what the argument about APM is saying. It was slowed down to match the human speed, but somehow that makes it less impressive? That is just making it more 'human-like'. Kind of like people today want to put guardrails on AI, but if it was unleashed, it beats them easily. That isn't a knock on the AI. The AI would still have to think about every move, and form a strategy. They slowed it down to human level inputs, handicapped it, to make it playable to a human. But to your point, if AI could make 400 APM and human had 400 APM (both limited to same), then that is better measure about the 'thought' behind each individual move. I still remember watching one match where the human was winning, the AI was down, and the AI really did fight back very aggressively from a loosing position, like a human. by expanding and adapting, and it looked very scary.

Etherlord87 3y ago
> How do you have 'over-hyped' and 'very impressive' in same sentence. Which is it? I'm stunned; how would you think they are contradictory? Imagine a transportation that moves with the speed of 1000 km/h. Very impressive, right? Now imagine media everywhere say it moves with the speed of light. Wouldn't this be over-hyping? > BUT importantly, it NEVER had perfect information. It could only see exactly the same as the human Maybe we're speaking about different events... In the one I'm commenting on, the AI had some zoom-out, I think 2x (meaning it would see 4 times more at once). Yes it had fog of war, but a zoom out like this is a very significant advantage. > And. Little unsure on what the argument about APM is saying. It was slowed down to match the human speed, No it wasn't, not exactly. Imagine that you measure a human racer speed in km/minute, every minute. Then you take the highest measured "average per minute", and program AI to move with that speed at all times. Then you praise AI for its pathfinding algorithm, because using that speed, it beats the human racers. Yes, if a human racer has to slow down, because e.g. the human is unable to avoid obstacles at maximum speed, it does make the AI being able to move faster, impressive. But few people here would be impressed by a high reflex of a computer, because we all are used to the fact computers can react much faster than humans. It is misleading, however, to allow AI to move faster, and then give it the "spin", as you say, that the AI has won because it was smart, as opposed to being fast. BTW, I think the AI was either only using one race, or was playing only against one race. This one thing was actually mentioned in the event (once). The APM was mentioned too, I think, but the nuance I describe unfortunately wasn't mentioned. It makes me sad, because as I said, it is a very impressive technology. But it's hard to fully appreciate something when it is so blatantly over-hyped and when you see so many people around you being mislead and praising AI for achievements that it didn't exactly accomplish.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  You are correct, there were limits on the AI in the event. It could only play 1 race, but I think the opposition could be different races. I think it was protoss, but it was playing terrans and zerg. There might have been 1 or 2 units that were also removed. In the first events where it was really dominant. It could see the whole map at once, and move its units all over the map by seeing it all. So moving units on both sides of the map practically simultaneously. BUT, this was called out as just too much of an advantage, so they made another version that actually had to move the camera around the map like a human. And the second version was still able to perform. Map wise though, for AI, I think the dealing with the fog of war and un-known/imperfect information was the big break through. Not the map size or speed. It still had to scout, and keep up with enemy movements that were hidden, and anticipate. The zoom out didn't provide that. I'm not totally buying the APM argument (but by end of the paragraph I do). Even if a computer can move 'faster', each move must mean something, do something worthwhile. So the computer must think out its moves. I know micro in SC2 is very big deal, and speed is essential, but you do have to know what to micro. The computer having 1000+ APM was called out also, and they added a limit. By throttling the AI to what a human can do, is handicapping the AI which isn't proving that AI isn't as good, it is showing that it can be better. Or another way, in Chess or GO, there is a time limit, but nobody is throttling the AI CPU to the same speed as a human brain, like limiting its computation cycles. So, guess in end, I do agree, throttling APM is like a real time imposing a time limit to each move, like in Chess. For Over-Hype/Impressive point. It is difficult. Both can be true. And everyone on the internet has different thresholds for what they think is over-hype and what is impressive. AI seems overwhelmed with both sides right now. Seemingly new miracles every day, and also over-hyped companies pumping their stock by adding an AI sticker to every product. I just say, those AlphaStar matches were like 5 years ago, and they still blow me away. Hard to imagine what could be possible, with this latest release in this post from deepmind. Plug into a camera, on a robot, with a gun, and tell it the world is just a 3d game.