I would love to keep a 24/7 stream open where the AI is continuously playing against the game's own bots in order to improve its playstyle.
I would probably watch that
DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
131–140 of 344 posts
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#132This is pretty interesting. DeepMind’s last triumph (beating the best human Go players with AlphaGo) is impressive, but Go is a great fit for neural networks as they stand today; it’s stateless, so you can fully evaluate your position based on the state of the board at a given turn. That’s not a good fit for most real-world problems, where you have to remember something that happened in the past. E.g. the ‘fog of war…
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid.
I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage.
Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not the only deciding factor in StarCraft.
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#133Anybody else sees a problem with training the AI to move troops around a battlefield, with the purpose to exterminate the opponent?
This worry and the implication (control use of AI) is similar to the development of cryptography. Try to stop people from doing evil with it is a completely fruitless task.
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#134This is pretty interesting. DeepMind’s last triumph (beating the best human Go players with AlphaGo) is impressive, but Go is a great fit for neural networks as they stand today; it’s stateless, so you can fully evaluate your position based on the state of the board at a given turn. That’s not a good fit for most real-world problems, where you have to remember something that happened in the past. E.g. the ‘fog of war…
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid. I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage. Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not…
I agree. I think you'd have to limit that machine's APM to somewhere around the human limit, and make it choose which actions it wants to spend its time on.
Otherwise the AI is eventually just going to absolutely destroy humans with micro, which is not remotely interesting. We've known transistors were faster than fingers for ages.
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm so sick of this argument. How about we have a spine for once and say no?
I'd be curious to hear more of your argument. The world is a complex place. How do you protect the one's you love when others exist who wouldn't say no?
Eventually the only people left are those who wouldn't say no
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#136This is pretty interesting. DeepMind’s last triumph (beating the best human Go players with AlphaGo) is impressive, but Go is a great fit for neural networks as they stand today; it’s stateless, so you can fully evaluate your position based on the state of the board at a given turn. That’s not a good fit for most real-world problems, where you have to remember something that happened in the past. E.g. the ‘fog of war…
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid. More like a time to be very excited! But I totally agree, long-term dependencies are an difficult problem. The DNC[0] by DeepMind is in my opinion a very important step in the correct direction to tackle this. [0] https://deepmind.com/blog/differentiable-neural-computers/
Honestly you can solve fog of war using regular computing (TM) to remember the last known state of a particular area, then feed that to the network along with information that A. it's an area as it was seen some time ago B. how much time elapsed since it was last uncovered.
I can't imagine that this is where DNCs come in unless you want to needlessly complicate the matter (and create a network that is much more expensive to train).
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#137This is pretty interesting. DeepMind’s last triumph (beating the best human Go players with AlphaGo) is impressive, but Go is a great fit for neural networks as they stand today; it’s stateless, so you can fully evaluate your position based on the state of the board at a given turn. That’s not a good fit for most real-world problems, where you have to remember something that happened in the past. E.g. the ‘fog of war…
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid. I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage. Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not…
Isn't it easy to account for this? Just force the AI to stick to between 100 and 150 APM, and it becomes its responsibility budget its APM.
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#138I wonder if AI will take over eSports (Twitch, competitions, etc.), as well. It could be a variant of the Turing test.
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid. I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage. Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not…
I agree. I think you'd have to limit that machine's APM to somewhere around the human limit, and make it choose which actions it wants to spend its time on. Otherwise the AI is eventually just going to absolutely destroy humans with micro, which is not remotely interesting. We've known transistors were faster than fingers for ages.
> Otherwise the AI is eventually just going to absolutely destroy humans with micro, which is not remotely interesting.
If you could issue as many orders as you wanted, what would the optimal strategy be?
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid. I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage. Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not…
Isn't it easy to account for this? Just force the AI to stick to between 100 and 150 APM, and it becomes its responsibility budget its APM.
APM limiting would be an interesting way to scale the game's difficulty level.