281–290 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such high actions per minute does not seem fun to me, and possibly a repetitive strain injury waiting to happen.
> a repetitive strain injury waiting to happen. Yes, I have one from it and wasn't even playing that high (I averaged less than 100 apm). I understand that it's a common problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Yes but X has a tiny problem space compared to something like Y. People want to see an AI win because it's smart, not because it crunches numbers." 1980: X = Tic-tac-toe, Y = Chequers 1990: X = Chequers, Y = Chess 2000: X = Chess, Y = Go 2019: X = Go, Y = StarCraft 2030: X = Any video game, Y = ???
Is a AI that wins at Starcraft only because it has crazy high APM really going to help get to the next X? We could have built that 10 years ago. All it proves is that computers have faster reflexes then humans. That won’t help them become problem solvers for the future.
Check out: https://youtu.be/cUTMhmVh1qs?t=3189
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…
What does it matter, at this point? The proof is in the pudding, and we are making more and more pudding everyday. Instead of caring about naysayers, we need to be working under the assumption AI is here to stay and rapidly expanding in scope, and we need to build the social and political structures to be able to handle it.
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 a nutshell, AI micro was flawless, makes up for suboptimal macro?
What are the games that, so far, still look like they will be too difficult for ML to play them at the highest level? I know Go was held to be this kind of game for a long time and is now close to being dominated by AI. Magic: the gathering perhaps?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are three things this seems to do. And what's changed is the perceived value of these. 1) Increased mining rate. Although there's a prescribed "maximum", as I understand it adding more workers, up to some limit, does yield more minerals beyond the prescribed. 2) Buffer against harassment. If you are over-saturated and lose two probes, you rate of income isn't affected. 3) Bootstrapping an expansion. All of the…
Right, I get that it AlphaStar has decided this is sensible, I just wonder if we'll start seeing pros adopt something similar? I'm also more generally curious as to what the cutoff point at which adding an additional probe ceases having any value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the spirit of the proposal but that would be like limiting a computer to add at most two numbers per second. It's OK if we want an interesting contest against humans but it wouldn't be a fair estimate of a computer math capability. It's also not the point of using computers to do math instead of a room full of accountants. I'm OK with the AI going as fast as it can and play superhuman strategies because…
But it's important to be clear about what's being measured. If the AI can take and successfully win engagements that no human could because of their superior micro, it's not necessarily winning via superior strategy (as is claimed).
hooking it up to a camera looking at a screen and a robot arm with a mouse would be more fair though.
edit: ok they did have a camera version, but i still want a robot arm.
Interested to hear what others here think. The APM metric includes all clicks a player makes. AlphaStar's APM is lower than a typical pro's, but that does not mean it is making fewer actions. All pros try to keep a high "tempo" by constantly clicking the screen even when they are not making any actions. e.g. Instead of sending a unit to a specific location with one click, they will click 5-6 times while dragging the…
While the average was around 350ms, this number is skewed by a significant long tail extending up to 1300ms for some actions. The most common response is sub-200ms and the third most common response is 65ms-100ms. The best pros can consistently hit close to 200ms but I am not sure if they can even hit below 100ms, let alone 65ms.