Props for the $12k donation to OpenDota. That's really awesome! Tho I personally always preferred Dotabuff.
The features are slightly different so people usually use both.
More on Dota 2
71–80 of 106 posts
Re: More on Dota 2
#72I find the mechanism for learning + the timeline far more impressive than what they accomplished. A series of 5 bots that can consistently compete with 5 humans at the 4.5k+ level would be a very impressive display of AI training.
Re: More on Dota 2
#73I 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…
Until they ditch the API, I don't want to read about them claiming to have "beaten" a human opponent. It's nonsense. I'm sure your AI is impressive, but you're not even playing the same game.
Re: More on Dota 2
#74I find the mechanism for learning + the timeline far more impressive than what they accomplished. A series of 5 bots that can consistently compete with 5 humans at the 4.5k+ level would be a very impressive display of AI training.
What I'd like to see is them implementing AI for a strategy game that benefits from an overall vision, such as Civilization.
And then selling the AI to Firaxis.
Yes, Civ 6 AI still isn't anywhere close to what it should be.
Re: More on Dota 2
#75That's a good hero to lead off with. Soulstealer (is the HoN name, blanking on the original Dota name) is a hero with very basic mechanics. Or rather, there's a ranged, AoE ability, an ultimate that boils down to "stand in the middle and hit the button", but the rest of the mechanics boil down to "last hit lane creeps well" which is a huge Dota 2 game mechanic. And this hero does better as they succeed at last hitting.
Re: More on Dota 2
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 standa…
> This might be the way to introduce AI to non-technologists and get people excited about it.
Yeah, I'm almost positive that this exhibition is intended mostly to raise awareness and create this hype. Go and Chess, for most people, are simple games compared to Dota2, so if Elon is worried about AI and want people to be more aware of the threat he perceives it certainly helps to make this big show and get all those impressions with a game that is considered by the majority of people (especially younger) to be more complex/harder than what has been done before.
Re: More on Dota 2
#77Earlier 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…
Interesting, thanks.
Several years ago, League of Legends released an upgraded suite of bot characters. One of them, Cassiopeia, had to be turned down enormously from her best play to make her viable. She could beat many of the game's devs (mid-tier hobbyists) and was a non-zero threat to professional players. This was, to my knowledge, achieved with little or no machine learning at all.
The defining traits were similar to what we see here. She had area of effect spells with casting delays, meaning that the ability to precisely evaluate how other players could move was crucial. And she had a spell which refreshed based on the effect of those AOEs, meaning that millisecond precision was a major source of her ability to deal damage. And her ultimate was an exceedingly touchy and unpredictable disable based on the angle opponents were facing (in a game with instantaneous turning). Even top-tier pro players regularly lost its effect because of latency or judgement issues.
The results, by all accounts, were terrifying. She was barely competent strategically, but as long as she could afford items (and admittedly, the LoL bots don't need to farm) she could win all of her tactical fights simply by inhuman precision.
The OpenAI project is more admirable than that. It uses real farm, makes item purchasing decisions, and apparently has a rate-limited API. (That last seems especially important.) But I still wonder how much of the bot capabilities are derived simply from inhuman accuracy.
Re: More on Dota 2
#78I 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 hobbyi…
You forgot to mention the people working on physical robots, waiting for software to get better.
Re: More on Dota 2
#79Earlier 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".
With the correct rates and latencies it should be possible to be fair though? I.e., if an event occurs in the game, it's placed in a queue and the AI "sees" events pop out the other end of that queue, at a minimum latency and at a maximum rate (i.e. if too many things happen at once the AI is overloaded). After that the AI makes decisions and puts the command in a command queue. The command queue works the same way:…
Latency ought to be easily enforced, yeah. The other vagaries of human play, like pixel-precision on mouseclicks and mathematical precision calculating damage and health, are harder to model. But I don't think they'll be impossible, and I think they soon won't be a disaster for the AI.
Re: More on Dota 2
#80I find the mechanism for learning + the timeline far more impressive than what they accomplished. A series of 5 bots that can consistently compete with 5 humans at the 4.5k+ level would be a very impressive display of AI training.
Agreed. There's been a lot of criticism of their final outcome, which is understandable - it's not at all "beats pro players at DOTA". But seeing that timeline absolutely blew me away.
In particular, I'm stunned that the pro players accurately assessed "Sumail will win" on the 9th, but the improvements of one day of training invalidated the assessment.