61–70 of 138 posts
clicked on the stream, title should be changed to "getting destroyed by Humans"
Let's just ignore the first two 25 minute games in favour of AI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that AIs will eventually win. But I only consider human beings beaten when the AI is interfacing with the machine the same way as humans -- looking at the monitor, and inputting commands through keyboard and mouse. That is on a different level than just hooking into a log of events and calculating your next move. Given enough time humans would do that better than the AI imo
Come on, do you think hooking a robot to the keyboard is the hard part? Do you want 5 fingers too? And if watching the screen, do you want it to have bad eyes like we do too (good resolution only in the center)?
In the last game of the series the bots were forced to play an intentionally terrible hero lineup. The humans finally got to win a game but more interesting for me was that the times when the AI did seemingly crazy things were much more common. I wonder if this is an artifact of the training methodology: maybe if your team is very weak then your choices are also weaker, and reinforcement learning doesn't work as well…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on, do you think hooking a robot to the keyboard is the hard part? Do you want 5 fingers too? And if watching the screen, do you want it to have bad eyes like we do too (good resolution only in the center)?
Yea, I think having a robot use fingers to manipulate the keyboard like a human is a very hard part
In the last game of the series the bots were forced to play an intentionally terrible hero lineup. The humans finally got to win a game but more interesting for me was that the times when the AI did seemingly crazy things were much more common. I wonder if this is an artifact of the training methodology: maybe if your team is very weak then your choices are also weaker, and reinforcement learning doesn't work as well…
It reminds me of the Go AIs going on tilt when they're far behind. When the win percentage for Go AIs gets to around 5%, every action it can take results in a losing game so it can't make the difference between normal play and super strange moves anymore. When every choice is really bad, humans tend to still go with their normal strategy and wait for their chance to turn things around, but bots assume the opponent is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that AIs will eventually win. But I only consider human beings beaten when the AI is interfacing with the machine the same way as humans -- looking at the monitor, and inputting commands through keyboard and mouse. That is on a different level than just hooking into a log of events and calculating your next move. Given enough time humans would do that better than the AI imo
I mean, interacting with the mouse and keyboard isn't the interesting part. Like, imagine if this was a chess AI, and we were trying to determine who was better at chess, humans or AI. Would you make the AI use robotic hands to move the pieces? No, because thats not the interesting part of chess. The interesting part of chess is the strategy.
And consider a game like Quake where mechanical skill is even more important (even though mechanical skill matters, Dota 2 is still primarily a game about strategy and team coordination).
In the last game of the series the bots were forced to play an intentionally terrible hero lineup. The humans finally got to win a game but more interesting for me was that the times when the AI did seemingly crazy things were much more common. I wonder if this is an artifact of the training methodology: maybe if your team is very weak then your choices are also weaker, and reinforcement learning doesn't work as well…
I'd say that those were crazy things, but not too much. AI understood that teamfight were impossibile to win, and so the really weird choices (sven dying for the tower lol) . I'd say that matches with such lineup are not too much and so they didn't really know, but they did an awesome job and kept things balanced for so long
Taking a tier 2 tower nets everyone on the team 120 gold (a further 150+ gold goes to the hero who gets the last hit), and losing Sven probably gave the opposing team less than was gained.
Perhaps the AI simply placed more value on increasing the total net worth of the team than it valued saving the life of one of its core heroes. Additionally, there was no guarantee that he would have been able to escape, as Sven was deep on the enemy's side of the map, and there's a very real possibility that he could have been ganked from someone in the jungle had he attempted to retreat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be really interesting to see what bots will do once humans will try to exploit this strategy, like adapting to the lane movement they always do after winning a lane etc, humans did that once today but it may be used better. Excited for the TI to see less limitation, a better shop system (lot of money throw away) and maybe better ward.
The next AI will always be much better (see AlphaGo progression). Humans, not so much, as in all top-level competitions, human abilities improve minimally at the top, because we have millions of humans competing against each other until the plateau of human performance is reached. Then you can push that a bit more with drugs (see doping in sports). And after that, you are pretty much done. So it's only a matter of ti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, interacting with the mouse and keyboard isn't the interesting part. Like, imagine if this was a chess AI, and we were trying to determine who was better at chess, humans or AI. Would you make the AI use robotic hands to move the pieces? No, because thats not the interesting part of chess. The interesting part of chess is the strategy.
There is 0 mechanical skill involved in chess. Reflexes don't matter. There is mechanical skill involved in Dota 2, and reflexes matter. And consider a game like Quake where mechanical skill is even more important (even though mechanical skill matters, Dota 2 is still primarily a game about strategy and team coordination).