Live data from Hacker News

AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II

deepmind.com

411–420 of 459 posts

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

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sin…

This doesn't nullify the observations that people are making here. Part of the difficulty here is describing what a 'fair' match might be. Specifically, I think fairness has to do with a goal many people have for AI: to improve human play. The strategies in Chess or Go that were employed could conceivably be used by human players. There aren't any hard restrictions preventing humans from learning from that play, even…

None of this really matters though. The AI is improving every day through training. Give it another few months of development and it'll be able to trounce humans under any "fair" set of handicaps you can think of, like limiting average and max APM throughout the game. We saw the same pattern with AlphaGo. There's no reason whatsoever to suppose that humans are fundamentally better at this game than an AI can be.

When AlphaGo first one, people said it wasn't fair because it was running on a whole cluster of computers. Well, within not much time at all, it was good enough to run on a single computer and still beat top humans. We are dealing with exponential progress here. The writing is on the wall.

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

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sin…

What kind of evidence is going into this analogical reasoning? Do we also extrapolate similarly for other things? We went to the Moon in 1960s. Was Mars a month, or a year, or a decade away? Then we sent robots to Mars. Did we yet send any robots to Alpha Centauri? Different problems have different difficulties. Solving simple problems quickly doesn't mean we'd also be able to just as easily solve the hard problems.…

Going to the Moon is a completely different endeavor than making an AI better at a game that it's already quite good at. This is a red herring.

If you had bet against AIs reaching parity with top human players in any previous game, whether it be Checkers, Chess, Go, etc., you'd have lost. I see no reason why StarCraft II should be any different.

We can reconvene in the comments here a year from now and see where AlphaStar is then.

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

#413
post #402
post #398

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/deepmind-starcraft-results-a... "In a final match against Komincz, streamed live on Twitch, the DeepMind team used a new agent that, unlike those in the other matches, could only see by moving the focus of the in-game camera. As a result, the AI was forced to move its units in a more focussed, human-like way. Despite dominating the game early on, AlphaStar lost. In all the games contes…

If I understood correctly. In the first 10 matches AlphaStar can see the whole map in detail (not just the mini map) at the same time. The humans can only see their camera's view. In the 11th match the AlphaStar can only see via a camera view as well. It has to move the camera the way a human would to see other parts of the map in detail. The 11th game was a fairer test. This, along with the documentary of the human…

Allowing the machine to have a far-more informed view of the game than a human seems like these tests are not realistic battles. The human should have the same information about the game as the machine. I would certainly hope a machine with more information than the human could beat a human. Perhaps I am not understanding the situation?

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

#414
post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to make my point clearer. If we want to measure strategy, I agree with you, and out of curiosity we might do it. But the goal is winning, so is strategy important as long as it wins? The AI can take every shortcut it finds IMHO. People do take shortcuts. Cars and planes bring us across the world exactly because they don't walk like people and don't fly like birds. Wheels, fixed wings and turbofans are shortcuts…

The problem with starcraft is - interface overhead is significant part of the game. AI doesn't have to cope with that - every click is perfect, and moving the mouse from one edge of the screen to the other takes no time. If you want to make it fair - place an AI-steered robot in front of the screen, and make it record the screen with camera, and actually move the mouse and press the keys. Then I can agree it's fair :…

Those are different engineering problems. I'm pretty sure that they could eventually build a pixel perfect camera and a fast pixel perfect robot mouse. They'll be at least as good as human eyes and hands, probably better. Done that, they'll keep winning.

It's surely interesting technology with positive impacts in a lot of areas but is it that the important part of the experiment? Humans need keyboards and mice to interface with computers, computers don't (lucky them.)

Sorry to insist on that analogy, but it looks to me as if my car should be able to fit my shoes and walk before I admit that it goes to another city quicker than me walking.

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

#415
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if a human tries to use the API with a custom UI of the human's own choosing? Such a UI might not exist yet, but are there ideas for more efficient UIs that could be built?

How about having multiple humans control the same faction, so one can focus on building, two on a couple of battle groups, another on scouting, etc.? Then they don't have to context switch nearly so much.

They actually have this game mode built in, it's called Archon mode.

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

#416
post #358
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly not. The trick is usually to build pylons (or other cannons) such that they protect the cannons from being attacked by probes. Building them out of sight is usually too slow as a rush. Still, he didn't do that either.

In the beginning of SCII I only saw people trying to hide it. But I guess the strategy evolved, interesting.

Sometimes you may see a photon cannon used to deny an enemy's natural expansion to try to gain an economic advantage. Depending on the map and matchup, it may also complicate the enemy's early attempts at scouting and aggression.

Typically, you don't see more than 1-2 photo cannons, because you don't usually want to "over-invest" and lose what advantage you gain.

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

#417
post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with starcraft is - interface overhead is significant part of the game. AI doesn't have to cope with that - every click is perfect, and moving the mouse from one edge of the screen to the other takes no time. If you want to make it fair - place an AI-steered robot in front of the screen, and make it record the screen with camera, and actually move the mouse and press the keys. Then I can agree it's fair :…

Those are different engineering problems. I'm pretty sure that they could eventually build a pixel perfect camera and a fast pixel perfect robot mouse. They'll be at least as good as human eyes and hands, probably better. Done that, they'll keep winning. It's surely interesting technology with positive impacts in a lot of areas but is it that the important part of the experiment? Humans need keyboards and mice to int…

No, these are not "just" engineering problems.

When you're trying to individually blink 30 stalkers at the perfect time they have almost 1 hp - latency is everything.

Camera has latency. Depending on various factors it takes even milliseconds of exposure for camera to gather enough light that it registers as a clear image frame. Human eye works on a different basis, but also isn't instant. You cannot cut that in software, human player cannot train to lower this. But AI doesn't need to do it - it has image provided as a memory buffer.

Image recognition has latency (both in the brain and in computer). Even as simple stuff as recognizing where the computer screen is as opposed to the background. It takes time. AI doesn't need to do it.

Muscles (engines in robot hands) have latency.

Mouses and hands have inertia and can't be moved instantly - have to be accelerated and stopped and even if you have optimal algorithm to be 100% accurate - it takes time.

It's not only hard to implement, it's also physically IMPOSSIBLE to do without introducing significant delays.

AI that is controlling the ui directly doesn't have to deal with most of these tasks, so it has a huge advantage in a game like starcraft. It's not that AI is so much better, it's that AI is high-frequency trading and human player is sending requests to buy/sell by telefax. By the time your request is processed the other guy had opportunity to do 10 different things.

If you want to focus on the part of the job that is doable now - sure, go ahead. But then don't abuse the unfair advantages you have and announce you "won". It's very low threshold to win in starcraft when your opponent has effectively 100 times the lag you do.

I'm sure someday we will have AI that can beat human player in starcraft without abusing this advantage, And I'm pretty sure the fastest way to this isn't to put a real robot in front of a screen, but it's to limit the intraface bandwidth of the AI to be on the similar level as that of human players.

> Sorry to insist on that analogy, but it looks to me as if my car should be able to fit my shoes and walk before I admit that it goes to another city quicker than me walking.

Let's remove the roads that we made specifically for cars and speak about this again :) Will your car move you through an untamed wilderness quicker than your legs? Possibly. Or not at all.

If I walk into a bullet train, slowly walk inside it, and walk out of it at the end of the route I will be even faster than the fastest car. Is it fair to say I'm faster than a car? After all it's not my fault the car doesn't fit inside that bullet train :)

We need to compare apples to apples, and comparing AI that doesn't need to deal with half the sources of latency with a human player that does, in a game where latency is very important - just isn't fair.

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

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, it's like being impressed by a calculator because it can multiply two massive numbers faster than we can... no shit, that's the whole reason we use computers, because they calculate faster than we can... There's nothing impressive in coding something that can execute something far faster than a human, or be so accurate and beat a human. There were Quake 3 bots that could wreck any human alive 10 years a…

> The point is, it's like being impressed by a calculator because it can multiply two massive numbers faster than we can Yeah, exactly. And when calculators first came out, people were very impressed by them. They upended entire industries and made new things possible that had simply never been possible before with manual calculation. When you're pooh-poohing the entire computational revolution you might want to take…

> Or give it a few months and they'll come back with a version hard-limited to half the APM of the human players and it'll still dominate.

And this is exactly what is being argued here. Let's see that in particular, not a demonstration that computers are faster than humans. Of course they are. Whoever argued that, ever? This has been known and envisioned even before calculators were invented.

What people here are arguing with you for is that we want human-level limitations of the controls for the AI so it can clearly win by better strategy.

Isn't that the goal here?

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

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of limiting speed isn't to make an interesting contest, it is to accurately compare the "math" instead of the speed the math is done at. It isn't surprising that its fast, the surprising part is that it can make human-like decisions. The only way to compare whether its thinking is human-like is to restrain it from "brute forcing" the contest through speed. The model has likely learned that the faster it d…

But isn't the competency of a Starcraft player is also measured on his/her speed? In that context, you can't really measure strategy without accounting for timing/speed because a lot of tactics and strategies only become viable once the player has the required speed to actually realize them aka "micro".

That would be right if AI and human player had the same opportunities for micro.

They don't, because AI doesn't use physical objects to move stuff in the game. AI just "thinks" that this stalker should blink and it blinks. Human player has to deal with inertia of his hand and of mouse.

If you want fair competition of micro - make a robot that watches screen through it's camera, moves mouse and presses keys to play starcraft.

Then the bandwith of the interface is the same for both players, and we can compare their micro.

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

#420
post #223
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a nit, but still fascinating: the human visual cortex finishes developing after birth. A newborn can't really distinguish between objects. The ability to differentiate, focus on and track objects is developed over the course of several months.

True. Humans are pretty unique in that regard, though; pretty much no other animal is like that. It's easier to understand human neonatal development if you just considering all humans to be born premature. (It'd be really interesting to know whether that's literally true—whether keeping a human baby in the womb for an extra few months would actually result in the same stages of mental development being passed that o…

Hypothesis:

Being born “prematurely” might allow for more flexible brain wiring. Adapting better to an environment quite distinct from ancient ones we had evolved in is possibly one of our key cognitive advantages compared to other animals.

Post reply on HN