Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

wildml.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#91

Post by mizzao »

sweden wrote: post #79
candiodari wrote: post #16

> Nobody likes being regulated, but everything (cars, planes, food, drugs, etc) that's a danger to the public is regulated. AI should be too. I hate that people actually see things this way. Regulation to prevent AIs from taking over the world will never happen, because nation states won't cooperate on such rules [1]. Additionally you can't catch people using AIs to determine their actions. BUT what regulation can do…

The "taking of the world" scenario is a too narrow view of the whole complexity of AI regulation. There are other more realistic and important scenarios that need to be addressed, for example: AI's default behaviour when challenged with a possibility of a car accident on a self driving system. Should the car try to avoid the accident by jumping of a cliff, sacrificing the life of the driver and of the people inside t…

You must be thinking of http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

But in practice, this is more a study of people's ethical tendencies around the world than a practical way to address AI decision-making in bad situations.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#92

Post by thenomad »

teej wrote: post #22
dvt wrote: post #7

Pretty much agree with everything in here. As I said in my earlier posting (and this blog post reiterates), a 1v1 Shadowfiend mid is highly technical and does not require a huge search space (like in Go or Chess) or any judgment; all it takes is a few tactics (e.g. creep blocking) and good aim for the razes. Also, the bot was already beaten 50+ times[1]. There are at least 3 strategies that work. It just goes to show…

What hero do you think would be a better test?

I know it'd need a much larger training set, but honestly you're not playing DOTA unless the full hero pool is in play.

Never mind 5v5, a 1v1 bot that would let Dendi/Sumail/RTZ etc choose any hero and still win would be much more impressive.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#93

Post by scribu »

sweden wrote: post #77
dennybritz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The point I was trying to make is not whether it is impressive or not (it is impressive!), but that the general press hype about "AI breakthroughs that will soon kill us all and need regulation" is over the top and misleading. The probably massive engineering effort that went into this is, to me, more impressive than the algorithmic innovation, if any. Progress is made with small incremental improvements, in…

I feel that you are missing the whole point of "AI breakthroughs that will soon kill us all and need regulation". It's not about AI becoming self-aware and start to proactively taking over humanity starting from a Dota game, it's how we are finally capable of putting AI anywhere. The point Elon Musk was trying to show is that nowadays, we have the technology and the research to replace humans by AI for making judgeme…

> AI playing games of Dota against the top players

This example weakens your argument. As TFA explains, the bot can only play a very restricted version of Dota - much simpler than chess - which means it was thinkable ever since the '90s, when Deep Blue beat Kasparov.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#94

Post by cthor »

thomasahle wrote: post #90
justicezyx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about which hero 1v1 is not a competitive part of dota, if you claim beat pro players it has to be 5v5 with banpick Otherwise just say it's 1v1 mid...

Sure, but it hadn't been done before. They say they'll go for 5v5 next year, and if it wins I'm sure we'll move the goal posts further again.

I'll precommit to being very impressed if a bot can achieve >5k MMR in solo ranked or if a bot-controlled team wins a tier 6 (or higher) battle cup.

When Checkers and Chess and Go pros were beaten by AI at the actual game, people were impressed, because it was impressive. (The goalpost moving involved claiming each consecutive game could not be solved.)

I don't think anyone here is saying Dota 2 won't be solved eventually or that its complexity is beyond the realm of AI (as was claimed of Chess/Go in the past). They're just saying this particular achievement isn't actually meaningful progress. It's using known techniques to do something those techniques are known to do.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#95

Post by tertius »

thenomad wrote: post #92
teej wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hero do you think would be a better test?

I know it'd need a much larger training set, but honestly you're not playing DOTA unless the full hero pool is in play. Never mind 5v5, a 1v1 bot that would let Dendi/Sumail/RTZ etc choose any hero and still win would be much more impressive.

And when that's done, 5v5 will be much more impressive, so we none the goal posts.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#96

Post by scribu »

Joeri wrote: post #88
goatlover wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the logic. Why should humanity go peacefully into oblivion with the advent of smarter than human machines? Do you feel like all the other species on this planet should have gone extinct with the arrival of homo sapiens? Your argument is that since B is better than A, only B should exist. But why can't both exist? And what makes your valuation of B objective and universal, such that our grandchildre…

Humanity currently is like a young child. We throw temper tantrums, make big messes and refuse to clean them up. We're terrible stewards of the earth and we serve no purpose as a species higher than existing and reproducing. We must grow up. But the fact that we're talking animals driven by primal urges makes this impossible through nurture alone. Either we change ourselves to the point of being a different species,…

> we serve no purpose as a species higher than existing and reproducing

You say that as if there are (or can ever be) species which do have a higher purpose.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#97

Post by lyndonjohnsonbe »

craigsmansion wrote: post #83

I hope someone can clarify. What are the definitions of AI and game complexity in this field? These all sound like very exiting developments. As I read about them a lot of times games such as Dota and Starcraft are touted as more complex than Chess or Go, but--at least with Starcraft, the AIs are limited in their number of actions to level the playing field. Isn't that like claiming humans can run faster than greyhou…

I know a little about AI in the first starcraft. Writing the AI to use the same interface as humans is difficult. To lower the bar for more people to play around with it, the AI reads data from memory directly. This creates an imbalance that they try to balance out with extra rules like rate limiting.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#98

Post by lottin »

sweden wrote: post #77
dennybritz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The point I was trying to make is not whether it is impressive or not (it is impressive!), but that the general press hype about "AI breakthroughs that will soon kill us all and need regulation" is over the top and misleading. The probably massive engineering effort that went into this is, to me, more impressive than the algorithmic innovation, if any. Progress is made with small incremental improvements, in…

I feel that you are missing the whole point of "AI breakthroughs that will soon kill us all and need regulation". It's not about AI becoming self-aware and start to proactively taking over humanity starting from a Dota game, it's how we are finally capable of putting AI anywhere. The point Elon Musk was trying to show is that nowadays, we have the technology and the research to replace humans by AI for making judgeme…

Self-driving cars have been around since the 1980s.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#99

Post by AndrewKemendo »

goatlover wrote: post #70
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lonely for who? Mathematically, yes I would expect one would be left standing, but no reason it would have the same sense of loneliness. Or maybe it would - we wouldn't know.

Only one intelligence left standing is an outcome that most people would find negative. It's like if Skynet was the last survivor of the Terminator franchise. Why would anyone want that outcome?

I think the Borg, if successful in assimilating every known intelligence universally, would be a more appropriate analogy. As to why they would want it, I can only speak for myself but I think it's the most logical outcome if you extend the concept of self awareness to the universe.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#100

Post by AndrewKemendo »

thinkfurther wrote: post #72
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hardly call a few sentences spelling it all out. Your point is one I hear often, especially the "what's the point if the heat death is coming anyway." Basically your argument lies in the "virtue ethics" category of philosophy which argues that man-qua-man should be the best man possible. Eudaimonia in the Stoic tradition and all of that. Either that you keep your ideas to yourself mostly Yes this is the case.

Well, do you have it spelled out somewhere? Want to spell it out? Otherwise, what's the point of bringing it up? Me too am completely unchallenged in my actual viewpoints, but I gotta run. That's pointless. > Basically your argument lies in the "virtue ethics" category of philosophy which argues that man-qua-man should be the best man possible. No, my argument is what I actually wrote, in short that I want the psycho…

No, I don't have it written out anywhere. I brought it up to test the waters somewhat and see what kind of response I would get. I'm hesitant to write it all out because I expect such a document would just be the source of opposition to implementation. Like putting war plans on the internet. If we make the progress we want I expect heavy opposition. However it's hard to build a movement in the shadows. I'd rather just be building things, and making progress toward the goal like I am now, than doing the politics of creating a movement before we have significant powers.

To your argument, it's the perfectability of man problem. You state the decoupling of psychological problems with some other undefined idealized personhood. It lacks an understanding of cognitive science, behavioral economics and neuroscience in my opinion. I would argue, and the science generally agrees, that those "psychological problems" however defined are the other edge on the sword of intelligence and relative autonomy.

So while you argue that yours is a simple argument is really rooted in an old ideal as I stated, which is neither incompatible with (through transhumanism) nor sufficient for, a practical material transcendent philosophy.

Post reply on HN