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

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: More on Dota 2

#61

Post by marricks »

BaronSamedi wrote: post #34
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…

I use to think that before I read about embodied cognition [1]. I think a lot of the harder and real challenges come from acting as an agent in an environment with often fuzy information.

Not only do challenges come in the form of input mechanism but potentially many rewards as well in terms of how humans process and off-load information.

While I don't think DotA would be the most important example, I think having a more realistic interface is a good step.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition artificial intelligence section probably most relevant

Re: More on Dota 2

#62

Post by gerardnll »

BaronSamedi wrote: post #34
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…

Real life doesn't have APIs that's why AI applied to robots and cars and whatever have to be able to interpret inputs like humans.

Re: More on Dota 2

#63

Post by [deleted] »

doikor wrote: post #45
_dps wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm almost entirely ignorant of DOTA 2, but the coverage suggests to me that it is winning mainly through what I would call "micro" excellence (firing at just the right range, careful maneuvering, and so on). It's clear that this kind of precision control is extremely advantaged by having direct access to the state of the game, rather than having to estimate it in real-time from vision data. So, to me, based purely o…

> it is winning mainly through what I would call "micro" excellence This is partly it. From the interviews with the pros it mostly close to perfect micro, calculating results very well (it knows when it will win the 3 raze spam + 2 autoattacks with 2hp left and thus wins the match etc. for a human that would be hard to calculate) and due to those two it punishes every small mistake the human player makes very hard. F…

[deleted]

Re: More on Dota 2

#64

Post by [deleted] »

damnfine wrote: post #49
gcp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a highly specific procedure that happens before there is interaction with the opponent, so without "handing over" the understanding that having creeps on your high-ground is good, it's very hard for the learning to see through the noise and discover this.

Exactly why this is not impressive to me. The point is to be able to learn the rules, but all I see is some of not only the rules, but the actions already prespecified in many cases. Yes its hard, and thats why humans still rule the roost.

[deleted]

Re: More on Dota 2

#65

Post by BaronSamedi »

lvoudour wrote: post #41
BaronSamedi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Compared to these problems, the choice of input mechanism is trivial I don't know why you think the visual/aural problem is trivial. The biggest achievement of AIs so far in this field is classification of static images

I apologize if my statement was misleading. I do not think the visual problem itself is trivial. I think the choice of input mechanism is tangential to the hard problems actually faced by the AI designers: strategy and tactics.

Re: More on Dota 2

#66

Post by [deleted] »

aaron695 wrote: post #26
jsnell wrote: post #3

Dupe, more discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031470

Unfortunately the HN title there which still isn't correct at time of writing this, distroyed a proper conversation. (Assuming the original article didn't fix their title)

[deleted]

Re: More on Dota 2

#67

Post by velobro »

BaronSamedi wrote: post #34
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…

The Dota 2 bot is no different than Aimbots in FPS games. The bot was able to access the api to perfectly target the exact location and instantly cast a spell, much like an Aimbot can instantly get headshots.

Re: More on Dota 2

#68

Post by GenKali »

grimskin wrote: post #58
_dps wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm almost entirely ignorant of DOTA 2, but the coverage suggests to me that it is winning mainly through what I would call "micro" excellence (firing at just the right range, careful maneuvering, and so on). It's clear that this kind of precision control is extremely advantaged by having direct access to the state of the game, rather than having to estimate it in real-time from vision data. So, to me, based purely o…

> it's not clear that it has learned anything like "superhuman" levels of strategy But still, it's learned "human" levels of strategy, and that actually amazing. And let's not forget, that this is only beginning, more stuff to come. IIRC - some third-party StarCraft AI actually invented a trick that was later used by human players on pro-level tournaments.

Indeed - I believe it was a highly successful build order that strayed from the 'norm' at the time. I was quite into SC2 at the time and this was something of a big deal.

Re: More on Dota 2

#69

Post by sp332 »

damnfine wrote: post #49
gcp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a highly specific procedure that happens before there is interaction with the opponent, so without "handing over" the understanding that having creeps on your high-ground is good, it's very hard for the learning to see through the noise and discover this.

Exactly why this is not impressive to me. The point is to be able to learn the rules, but all I see is some of not only the rules, but the actions already prespecified in many cases. Yes its hard, and thats why humans still rule the roost.

Humans learn from each other and don't puzzle everything out from first principles. So I wouldn't put that restriction on a computer intelligence either.

Re: More on Dota 2

#70

Post by mabramo »

skgoa wrote: post #56
_dps wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm almost entirely ignorant of DOTA 2, but the coverage suggests to me that it is winning mainly through what I would call "micro" excellence (firing at just the right range, careful maneuvering, and so on). It's clear that this kind of precision control is extremely advantaged by having direct access to the state of the game, rather than having to estimate it in real-time from vision data. So, to me, based purely o…

As someone who plays dota, this bot really isn't that impressive. The hero they chose is seen as a very difficult one to master for humans, precisely because judging distances, current life, current mana, damage etc. is so difficult to do on the fly and even if you can keep track of all of that in your head, you need extremely precise inputs to outplay your opponent. Yet by going through the API, they handed all of t…

In terms of Dota, I don't think it's that impressive, but it is still cool. I'll be impressed when I see a 5v5 with bots that adapt to the opponents' strategy. I do think that it currently could be an excellent tool for mid-laners and cores to practice. OpenAI is also blowing the door open to Dota AI development and we will soon see bot tournaments. Engineers will develop AI and put them against one another in standard 5v5 matches with a pick/ban phase and all.

In terms of AI, I don't /think/ there's anything groundbreaking here. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't follow AI research, but this technology is nothing we haven't already seen. I believe the development of AI for Dota is a publicity move to get people excited about what AI could be for humanity. This might be the way to introduce AI to non-technologists and get people excited about it.

Post reply on HN