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

AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

deepmind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 459 posts

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#81

Post by z_open »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #77
z_open wrote: post #2

They really should have used BroodWar for deep mind. SCII is way too volatile. Way more gimmicks available that will make it difficult for AI to come close to a human player.

I had a feeling we'd see Brood War elitism in here. There are many, many gimmicks in BW. Every time I watch ASL and KSL, I see numerous quick stomps based on gimmicky builds, just like in SC2, Dota, and every other strategy game with fog of war and a collision of messy strategies.

Cheese isn't the same as gimmicks. I'm talking about abilities that change the game. There are more in sc2.

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#82

Post by shawnz »

aerovistae wrote: post #47
shawnz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds to me like, although it could see the whole map at once, the fog of war was still applied. So the bot really just got as much information as the minimap would normally give a human player. > it could observe the attributes of its own and its opponent’s _visible units_ on the map directly

No, not true. Just had an extended argument with a friend over this. Here are some of my arguments against what you're saying: 1. While it's true that a human player could see everything the AI is seeing, the human player has to spend time and clicks to go see those things, whereas the AI sees it all simultaneously without having to use any actions or spend any time to take it in. 2. Emphasis on the computer seeing i…

> whereas the AI sees it all simultaneously without having to use any actions or spend any time to take it in.

Starcraft is a single-threaded game, so I would think that the AI ultimately still has to enumerate through each visible unit one-by-one to collect their information. Why is that so much different than enumerating through each visible screen and then enumerating through each unit on that screen? Either way, the AI could do it much faster than a human, whether it had to click through the screens manually or not. How would it be possible to eliminate this advantage? It seems to me that it's just part of the nature of AI.

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#83

Post by Jyaif »

cm2012 wrote: post #56
rcheu wrote: post #46

This is really impressive, I didn't expect starcraft to be played this well by a machine learning based AI. I'm excited to read the paper when it comes out! That said, I'm not sure I agree that it was winning mainly due to better decision making. For context, I've been ranked in the top 0.1% of players and beaten pros in Starcraft 2, and also work as a machine learning engineer. The stalker micro in particular looked…

In the showmatched they made the computer have to look at a regular screen to control, the stalker micro was much less impressive - and mana won.

The AI lost because it completely messed up the response to the immortal drop, nothing to do with micro.

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#84

Post by kowdermeister »

dilap wrote: post #54
ctoth wrote: post #41

Every year or so we get another huge advance... Well, more accurately, something comes along to benchmark the state of AI research against a human activity. Then come the HN comments. For Alpha Go: Oh this is impressive but can't generalize. Wake me up when it doesn't have to have information precoded/doesn't learn from human players For alpha go 0: So this is cool but not amazing because they're all perfect informat…

It's extremely impressive, but at the same time it's still an interesting and fair question to say, "can we make an AI that beats humans while playing in a 'human like' fashion?", or alternatively, could we make an AI that would win if we put it inside a human body and made it play through those physical input restrictions? (I do agree though that HN is way too negative overall. Partly it's just because, negative com…

> "can we make an AI that beats humans while playing in a 'human like' fashion?"

Yes, now.

From the article:

“I was impressed to see AlphaStar pull off advanced moves and different strategies across almost every game, using a very human style of gameplay I wouldn’t have expected,” he said. “I’ve realised how much my gameplay relies on forcing mistakes and being able to exploit human reactions, so this has put the game in a whole new light for me. We’re all excited to see what comes next.”

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#85

Post by knicholes »

Thaxll wrote: post #59
rcheu wrote: post #46

This is really impressive, I didn't expect starcraft to be played this well by a machine learning based AI. I'm excited to read the paper when it comes out! That said, I'm not sure I agree that it was winning mainly due to better decision making. For context, I've been ranked in the top 0.1% of players and beaten pros in Starcraft 2, and also work as a machine learning engineer. The stalker micro in particular looked…

This is exactly what I think, I'd like to see how Alphastar react to "cannon rush" or other weird bo where you need to be "smart" to counter it and just not be based on insane / none human micro.

This is how it responds to cannon rush. : ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYdWQjTWTFM

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#86

Post by ionforce »

sleepydog wrote: post #63
modeless wrote: post #8

AlphaStar interacted with the StarCraft game engine directly via its raw interface, meaning that it could observe the attributes of its own and its opponent’s visible units on the map directly, without having to move the camera - effectively playing with a zoomed out view of the game Additionally, and subsequent to the matches, we developed a second version of AlphaStar. Like human players, this version of AlphaStar…

I'm curious, would the AI be able to see cloaked units? In sc1 you could see them,( I think sc2 is the same) but it was very difficult. How does the 'raw' interface expose that subtlety?

This is actually a great question. Like what does it mean for a unit to be cloaked?

If humans can, under ideal circumstances, see cloaked units... Maybe the only mechanic that shows up (like for bots or an API) is the inability to be targeted using an attack command (i.e. you can still be hit with splash damage from ground targeting)

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#88

Post by celeritascelery »

Jyaif wrote: post #83
cm2012 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the showmatched they made the computer have to look at a regular screen to control, the stalker micro was much less impressive - and mana won.

The AI lost because it completely messed up the response to the immortal drop, nothing to do with micro.

Mana got himself in the same situation where he was surrounded by stalkers on multiple sides, but this time the micro wasn’t so crazy that he couldn’t manage it, and he was able to take on one group at a time. The immortal drop, while unanswered, was not really that effectual.

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#89

Post by graedus »

CydeWeys wrote: post #60
aerovistae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not true. Just had an extended argument with a friend over this. Here are some of my arguments against what you're saying: 1. While it's true that a human player could see everything the AI is seeing, the human player has to spend time and clicks to go see those things, whereas the AI sees it all simultaneously without having to use any actions or spend any time to take it in. 2. Emphasis on the computer seeing i…

This sounds like a real advantage in the AI's favor though: It can focus its attention on a lot more things simultaneously. It's not just a UI difference; the AI is actually better at this, like how a pocket calculator is actually better at division than people. This latter bit we just accept; we don't defend humans by saying the calculator is cheating because it isn't writing out the calculation by hand. Similarly,…

It is certainly a real advantage, but I think the argument is that it's not as interesting as an AI that could win on the strength of better decision-making, or the innovation of novel strategies, etc.

Re: AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

#90

Post by CydeWeys »

cm2012 wrote: post #56
rcheu wrote: post #46

This is really impressive, I didn't expect starcraft to be played this well by a machine learning based AI. I'm excited to read the paper when it comes out! That said, I'm not sure I agree that it was winning mainly due to better decision making. For context, I've been ranked in the top 0.1% of players and beaten pros in Starcraft 2, and also work as a machine learning engineer. The stalker micro in particular looked…

In the showmatched they made the computer have to look at a regular screen to control, the stalker micro was much less impressive - and mana won.

For now. Give them another month. This is like AlphaGo vs Fan Hui all over again -- people knocked that accomplishment at the time because he was just a master, not one of the top players in the world. Well, not much longer, AlphaGo beat Lee Sedol, the best player in the world.

The ceiling here is going to be incredibly high, much higher than the level of play that people are capable of, even when restricted to a single window.

Post reply on HN