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

More on Dota 2

blog.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 106 posts

Re: More on Dota 2

#31

Post by gpm »

hobofan wrote: post #20
fridek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my thoughts after Elon Musk's tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/896163163581825025 Unless AI is constrained to pro player max pointer move delta, click rate, and vision latency, I don't really see much difference between AI and a team of kids running with aimbot shouting "cyka cyka".

> Actions accessible by the bot API, chosen at a frequency comparable to humans I would guess that this already includes all the delays you are asking for.

That's limiting the input bandwidth to the same as what's available to a human, but not limiting the input latency.

Just like with network traffic, they are two different numbers.

Re: More on Dota 2

#32

Post by hobofan »

lvoudour wrote: post #27
hobofan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the response as I've seen it on other threads: It probably doesn't make a big difference, and will outperform humans there too, and it would be a huge waste of computing power to train it that way. I think OpenAI should show that the AI can derive (a close aproximation of) the API data from videos, but I don't think that building a closed training loop would add much value here.

>And the response as I've seen it on other threads: It probably doesn't make a big difference, and will outperform humans there too, and it would be a huge waste of computing power to train it that way. Well they may be right about the "outperform" part but they are dead wrong about the waste of time/effort/energy part. I mean if (at least human-like) real-time video/audio recognition and decision making is not an im…

> sensory-based decision making

You can pretty cleanly split that up into two different problems: "sensory-based data extraction" and "data-based decision making"

Though I haven't worked in the field of self-driving cars, I am fairly confident that they employ a similar split: One part that takes in all the (pre-processed) data from LIDAR, cameras, etc. and maps that to a simplified model of the surroundings, and another part that makes the driving decisions based on the simplified model.

Sensory->data mapping doesn't raise a lot of eyebrows anymore if you can generate as much sensory information as you want to explore all possible states, as it is possible with Dota.

Re: More on Dota 2

#34

Post by BaronSamedi »

lvoudour wrote: post #15

I know it has been mentioned a lot the past few days, but since the articles keep flowing about it I'll mention it again: It's a great feat and kudos to the openai team, but it is VERY unfair for the human players who rely on a sensory interface vs a direct API connection. That's unlike chess or go where the interface isn't important. The really impressive feat will be an AI that uses the same sensory information to…

I completely disagree. An API is software's natural input mechanism just like the senses are a human's natural input mechanism. Having the AI use human senses unfairly handicaps it. More importantly, however, is that this is not the key problem.

The key problem is teaching the AI strategy and tactics. What heroes to pick? Where to lane them? When to rotate? What items to buy? What spells to level up? What enemies to target with which spells and in which order? These are the hard problems and they are very hard indeed. A 5v5 AI will have to become expert at risk calculation, Pareto optimization, basic military principles, and many more things. Compared to these problems, the choice of input mechanism is trivial.

Re: More on Dota 2

#35

Post by madez »

lvoudour wrote: post #15

I know it has been mentioned a lot the past few days, but since the articles keep flowing about it I'll mention it again: It's a great feat and kudos to the openai team, but it is VERY unfair for the human players who rely on a sensory interface vs a direct API connection. That's unlike chess or go where the interface isn't important. The really impressive feat will be an AI that uses the same sensory information to…

> The really impressive feat will be an AI that uses the same sensory information to make decisions (and I really hope that's where the openai will head next)

Impressive? Yes. Interesting? Not as much. We consider AI important not because it can play Dota. We consider stronger AI important for making our lives easier by solving problems. For AI to solve our problems we will not unnecessarily restrict it to our sensory information.

Re: More on Dota 2

#36

Post by hobofan »

gpm wrote: post #31
hobofan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actions accessible by the bot API, chosen at a frequency comparable to humans I would guess that this already includes all the delays you are asking for.

That's limiting the input bandwidth to the same as what's available to a human, but not limiting the input latency. Just like with network traffic, they are two different numbers.

Very much depends on how you employ the frequency limits. If you say "You can only do 300 actions per minute", the bot could make all 300 actions in the first second if it sees that as optimal, breaking the latency limits. If you however say "You can only do 1 action after waiting 200ms since the last action", the bot will have to choose one optimal action every 200ms, effectively limiting the input latency.

Re: More on Dota 2

#37

Post by lvoudour »

hobofan wrote: post #32
lvoudour wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And the response as I've seen it on other threads: It probably doesn't make a big difference, and will outperform humans there too, and it would be a huge waste of computing power to train it that way. Well they may be right about the "outperform" part but they are dead wrong about the waste of time/effort/energy part. I mean if (at least human-like) real-time video/audio recognition and decision making is not an im…

> sensory-based decision making You can pretty cleanly split that up into two different problems: "sensory-based data extraction" and "data-based decision making" Though I haven't worked in the field of self-driving cars, I am fairly confident that they employ a similar split: One part that takes in all the (pre-processed) data from LIDAR, cameras, etc. and maps that to a simplified model of the surroundings, and ano…

To me though as an outside observer it seems that the dota problem is harder than the car problem. There's too much action going on, too many visual/aural cues to keep track of, team cooperation/coordination, fog of war, etc.

Car AI is important because there are real life-or-death consequences, but the problem (again to my limited experience) seems more tractable: path choices are limited, action is rare, there's no team element and there's no competition. Even for human drivers driving a car in a city or motorway is a tedious, mostly repetitive task. Now, competitive driving raises the stakes and we haven't seen any self-driving car tackling that problem yet (which will definitely raise a lot of eyebrows)

Re: More on Dota 2

#38

Post by Houshalter »

lvoudour wrote: post #15

I know it has been mentioned a lot the past few days, but since the articles keep flowing about it I'll mention it again: It's a great feat and kudos to the openai team, but it is VERY unfair for the human players who rely on a sensory interface vs a direct API connection. That's unlike chess or go where the interface isn't important. The really impressive feat will be an AI that uses the same sensory information to…

The goal of this project is to make progress in reinforcement learning. Having an AI plan and learn strategies to play a game. This is a separate problem from machine vision, which is being worked on by tons of other people. Adding a machine vision requirement wouldn't help them with their goal and would take 100x more computing resources.

OpenAI could probably afford to do it, but it no smaller researchers or hobbyists would be able to compete.

Re: More on Dota 2

#40

Post by gpm »

hobofan wrote: post #36
gpm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's limiting the input bandwidth to the same as what's available to a human, but not limiting the input latency. Just like with network traffic, they are two different numbers.

Very much depends on how you employ the frequency limits. If you say "You can only do 300 actions per minute", the bot could make all 300 actions in the first second if it sees that as optimal, breaking the latency limits. If you however say "You can only do 1 action after waiting 200ms since the last action", the bot will have to choose one optimal action every 200ms, effectively limiting the input latency.

No. Because the bot can choose the next action at the end of the 200ms, with all the information available then, not at the start.

Bandwidth limits are typically of the "You can only do 1 action (send 1 packet) 200ms since you sent the last packet", not "You can only send 300 packets per minute".

Post reply on HN