The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
neuro.cs.ut.ee
The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#2> I think it is amazing that one relatively simple mathematical construct can produce such a complicated behavior.
No complicated behavior was produced.
> Or, I don’t know, maybe it says something about the complexity of Dota 2 game?
Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in the game. The combinatorics explode when you go from 18 to 110. Go on a 5x5 board is a joke compared to 19x19 Go. This is not hard to understand.
> Do short term tactics combined with fast reaction time beat long-term strategy?
In a game designed for humans, perhaps yes, because the game wouldn't be tested against extremely fast reaction times. The game was meant to be a strategic game for humans. Just because OpenAI Five appears to play Dota 2 (still doesn't beat any serious players though) doesn't imply anything fundamental about tactics beating strategy.
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#3> I think it is amazing that one relatively simple mathematical construct can produce such a complicated behavior. No complicated behavior was produced. > Or, I don’t know, maybe it says something about the complexity of Dota 2 game? Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in…
It was a subset in early demos, but not any more: https://blog.openai.com/the-international-2018-results/
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#4> I think it is amazing that one relatively simple mathematical construct can produce such a complicated behavior. No complicated behavior was produced. > Or, I don’t know, maybe it says something about the complexity of Dota 2 game? Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in…
It was a subset in early demos, but not any more: https://blog.openai.com/the-international-2018-results/
[deleted]
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#5> I think it is amazing that one relatively simple mathematical construct can produce such a complicated behavior. No complicated behavior was produced. > Or, I don’t know, maybe it says something about the complexity of Dota 2 game? Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in…
>> No complicated behavior was produced.
The bots were routinely pulling off coordinated team behavior that players couldn't figure out, but that worked. This has to qualify as complicated.
>> Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in the game. The combinatorics explode when you go from 18 to 110. Go on a 5x5 board is a joke compared to 19x19 Go. This is not hard to understand.
Already mentioned that the hero pool has been opened up. Along with the removal of the other restrictions (invincible courier, items) this is basically pure DotA.
>> Just because OpenAI Five appears to play Dota 2 (still doesn't beat any serious players though) doesn't imply anything fundamental about tactics beating strategy.
The bots beat a team of 5 casters (granted, with some of the older restrictions in place) who are individually in the top 1% of DotA players by MMR.
You're flat out wrong or at the very least inaccurate in all three statements that you made.
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#6> I think it is amazing that one relatively simple mathematical construct can produce such a complicated behavior. No complicated behavior was produced. > Or, I don’t know, maybe it says something about the complexity of Dota 2 game? Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in…
>> No complicated behavior was produced. The bots were routinely pulling off coordinated team behavior that players couldn't figure out, but that worked. This has to qualify as complicated. >> Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in the game. The combinatorics explode when…
>The bots beat a team of 5 casters (granted, with some of the older restrictions in place) who are individually in the top 1% of DotA players by MMR.
And without the 5 couriers the caster team probably would have won.
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#7> I think it is amazing that one relatively simple mathematical construct can produce such a complicated behavior. No complicated behavior was produced. > Or, I don’t know, maybe it says something about the complexity of Dota 2 game? Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in…
>> No complicated behavior was produced. The bots were routinely pulling off coordinated team behavior that players couldn't figure out, but that worked. This has to qualify as complicated. >> Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in the game. The combinatorics explode when…
> The bots were routinely pulling off coordinated team behavior that players couldn't figure out, but that worked. This has to qualify as complicated.
This is just not true. Do you know the game? Are you speaking as a player? Or are you telling us what's written in the OpenAI blog post? There is nothing a player couldn't figure out. The caster team lost because of the broken game and because few of them were rusted (Merlini hadn't played for months). The bots were garbage at the TI, and got beaten without any problem by the pro teams.
> Already mentioned that the hero pool has been opened up. Along with the removal of the other restrictions (invincible courier, items) this is basically pure DotA.
The hero pool is still 18 heroes. Dota 2 has over 110 heroes. Can you please try to think what makes you say something so wrong with so much confidence?
> The bots beat a team of 5 casters (granted, with some of the older restrictions in place) who are individually in the top 1% of DotA players by MMR.
Casters don't count as serious players. Would you regard any sports commentators as good players? Would you put 5 of them randomly in a team and say that's representative of the best players of that sport?
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#8> I think it is amazing that one relatively simple mathematical construct can produce such a complicated behavior. No complicated behavior was produced. > Or, I don’t know, maybe it says something about the complexity of Dota 2 game? Dota 2 game was not played. A tiny subset of the game was attempted. Since people seem to be just buying whatever OpenAI propaganda sells them, let me be specific: only 18 heroes are in…
It was a subset in early demos, but not any more: https://blog.openai.com/the-international-2018-results/
This is the kind of misinformation OpenAI is so great at. Otherwise smart people like tlb are led to believe that this was the full game even though it's not even close to the full game. Thanks for helping me make my point.
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#9Going to echo what I said last time before everyone falls for the propaganda. The bots did not play at a top tier level, the bots didn't even play at a level that could be considered median level. They did not discover new mechanics. They couldn't even understand basic mechanics. Their coordination was no more sophisticated than "wander around together and press all the buttons on the first enemy".
They were showing some signs of competitiveness because of their consistently better than human mechanical skills. You can go a long way in Dota2 off solid mechanical skills.
Re: The use of embeddings in OpenAI Five
#10Going to echo what I said last time before everyone falls for the propaganda. The bots did not play at a top tier level, the bots didn't even play at a level that could be considered median level. They did not discover new mechanics. They couldn't even understand basic mechanics. Their coordination was no more sophisticated than "wander around together and press all the buttons on the first enemy". They were showing…
I think that smart teams are going to extract what they can out of these bots. Even top players had difficulties dealing with the inhumanness of the bots - people are generally trained to compete against something that acts to some degree on instinct, not probability.
The bots lack if fear in e.g. diving a tower before 5 minutes definitely paid off to a certain degree.
I also personally feel that the caster stack of players intentionally lost their matches to hype OpenAI. The limitations of the bots were very apparent, and the pro players at TI easily outsmarted the bots by either:
- Split pushing with 1 hero and fighting with 4.
- Baiting a lower priority hero (e.g. Lion). The AI would very often vastly overcommit for kills in the lategame.