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

Mastering Stratego

deepmind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Mastering Stratego

#61

Post by scoofy »

ep103 wrote: post #17
clolege wrote: post #13

It's interesting to watch the videos they link of deepmind playing against the top-level Stratego masters [0]. I usually find Stratego to be a bit of a dull game (less elegant and more drawn out than Go and chess), but I'm a sucker for watching top-level AIs play. Its skills for bluffing are both fascinating and a bit scary. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaUdWoSMjSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-9ZXmyNKgs h…

Are these games against stratego masters? I'm watching the first one, but it doesn't say who they're playing against

The player in the first game had an advantage and didn't trade 10's, then for some crazy reason left his 10 out there to the only piece approaching the 10. I played a ton of stratego as a young adult, and i would never have thought that was close to an optimal strategy.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#62

Post by nlsvb »

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #21
dtdynasty wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an avid dota player I wouldn't agree with your characterization that 70% of dota 2 is your definition of tactics. What I've noticed differentiates player MMR the most is the strategy applied to each context. It's rarely the execution that's the problem as you can gain such overwhelming advantages through strategy.

There's barely any long term strategy in Dota, only meaningful strategic decisions are items and heroes. Even ultimate usage has like 2 minute window of importance. Wards too. And maybe the decision to push high ground because of how many times games are lost because of it, but it's the tactical errors usually making most of the difference there. What's your MMR, out of curiosity?

I'm immortal (6k MMR) and agree with the parent. I used to think similarly as you, because my mechanics were very good, but as I started to play with friends who are much lower ranked, I noticed that they can often execute things (e.g. ability usage) pretty well, but their overall play and strategy is desperately lacking. Things like playing the wrong areas of the map, spending their time inefficiently, never capitalizing on their strategic opportunities (e.g. not playing where they have vision, not playing in areas of the map that are near their objectives, not taking calculated risks based on available information).

I do think OpenAI five derived some of their advantage from seamless ability usage, and inhuman coordination in lane, but it also did some novel things strategically, that challenged some of the established tenets of high level play (e.g. they had a lot of mobility on the map, back when that was considered very inefficient).

Re: Mastering Stratego

#63

Post by SamBam »

10xDev wrote: post #58
astrange wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It generalizes as well as GPT-3 does: --- If you took the word "Wikipedia", and threw all the letters up in the air, what are some possible things they'd spell once they fell on the ground again? If you took the word "Wikipedia" and threw all the letters up in the air, some possible things they could spell once they fell on the ground again might include "kawipieda," "keiapwidi," "kipedwaia," "pwakieida," or "eipawik…

We don't know how well it is generalising to your input without knowing the training data. Failure cases however tell us a lot, such as the following: Input: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, how long will it take one cat to catch one mouse?" Output: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, then it will take one cat one minute to catch one mouse. This is because the number of cats and mice…

> Whereas a human would immediately pick that up because they reason beyond x=5 and y=5.

[Citation needed]

I think that the computer made the absolutely standard human mistake, so that could be considered a plus.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#64

Post by [deleted] »

SamBam wrote: post #63
10xDev wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know how well it is generalising to your input without knowing the training data. Failure cases however tell us a lot, such as the following: Input: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, how long will it take one cat to catch one mouse?" Output: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, then it will take one cat one minute to catch one mouse. This is because the number of cats and mice…

> Whereas a human would immediately pick that up because they reason beyond x=5 and y=5. [Citation needed] I think that the computer made the absolutely standard human mistake, so that could be considered a plus.

[deleted]

Re: Mastering Stratego

#65

Post by crhulls »

10xDev wrote: post #58
astrange wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It generalizes as well as GPT-3 does: --- If you took the word "Wikipedia", and threw all the letters up in the air, what are some possible things they'd spell once they fell on the ground again? If you took the word "Wikipedia" and threw all the letters up in the air, some possible things they could spell once they fell on the ground again might include "kawipieda," "keiapwidi," "kipedwaia," "pwakieida," or "eipawik…

We don't know how well it is generalising to your input without knowing the training data. Failure cases however tell us a lot, such as the following: Input: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, how long will it take one cat to catch one mouse?" Output: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, then it will take one cat one minute to catch one mouse. This is because the number of cats and mice…

Are you sure a human would immediately catch this? The question is somewhat ambiguous and I bet if you posed this question to many people they would take the oversimplified non-gotcha approach and simply say one minute for one mouse just like the AI. Of course if you abstract out there are so many other variables at play but within the confines of a simple word question the answer is not necessarily incorrect.

You could probably test this by asking a few friends this question and see what they say. Outside of pure math problems you can get into an infinite regress defining the underlying first principles behind any given assumption.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#66

Post by aetherane »

clolege wrote: post #60
VHRanger wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All Poker AIs developped as yet approaches Nash Equilibrium -- it's just a "perfect" strategy that wins by default because it makes no mistakes. Since you make mistakes against the AI strategy, and the sum of the game of poker is 0, you lose by default. No poker bots yet I know of have developed "exploitative" strategies, where they deviate from the Nash Equilibrium strategy to exploit opponent mistakes. Back when I…

Nash equilibriums exist when bluffing is involved? It seems like it would introduce a level of predictability that would make it easier to know when the opponent is bluffing.

A strategy can involve probability, like bluff 30% of time.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#67

Post by mark_l_watson »

dr_faustus wrote: post #20

Call me a cynic but the fact that after almost 10 years of AI hype we are still working our way down the list of popular board games is a bit of a downer for me. I mean, having AIs to play Stratego, Risk, Go, Diplomacy and what have you against sure is nice. But there are literally billions of dollars spent on these projects and I really come to the point where I just don't believe anymore that the current AI approac…

I agree with with you. I watched live every Lee Sedol Go game in the first match. Lost some sleep due to the time difference. I was so excited. That was a long time ago. Now large language models get me more excited for progress in AI.

At least this new model is very different to the approach taken in Alpha Go.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#68

Post by armchairhacker »

thinkmcfly wrote: post #51
armchairhacker wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of AI is really useful, at least for creating video games. Game devs spend countless hours making AI which is still not as effective or realistic as real humans, a straightforward way to create good game AI from ML it would be huge. As others mentioned, AI is making headspace in enterprise and accounting, and achieving the “last mile” of human work. Better image recognition for handwritten forms and mail, b…

Now game companies won't even own their ai! They will get to rent it by the minute from Google. The death of consumers having control over the software they pay for fucking suuuucks

Not neceessarily. Right now AIs like this take lots of compute and resources to train. But as we've seen with Stable Diffusion, it's likely in coming years we will scale them down and create more open-source ones so that indie devs can train them and players can run them on their own gaming GPU.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#69

Post by csomar »

zaptrem wrote: post #25
dr_faustus wrote: post #20

Call me a cynic but the fact that after almost 10 years of AI hype we are still working our way down the list of popular board games is a bit of a downer for me. I mean, having AIs to play Stratego, Risk, Go, Diplomacy and what have you against sure is nice. But there are literally billions of dollars spent on these projects and I really come to the point where I just don't believe anymore that the current AI approac…

Have you tried this out yet? https://chat.openai.com/ It's been providing real value to me over the past day for practicing Spanish, explaining Machine Learning concepts, and doing fancy write-ups in LaTeX. And this one can't even use Google yet! (other research teams have already created models capable of doing so, it's only a matter of time until these innovations are brought together in one place)

> Oops! > OpenAI's services are not available in your country. (error=unsupported_country)

I'm glad I forgot about them and opted out of Copilot. Fwiw, I'm currently in Cambodia.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#70

Post by nemo44x »

sdwr wrote: post #22
clolege wrote: post #13

It's interesting to watch the videos they link of deepmind playing against the top-level Stratego masters [0]. I usually find Stratego to be a bit of a dull game (less elegant and more drawn out than Go and chess), but I'm a sucker for watching top-level AIs play. Its skills for bluffing are both fascinating and a bit scary. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaUdWoSMjSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-9ZXmyNKgs h…

Watched some of the first game. I'd bet stratego favors defence, advantage to the AI that has no/minimal concept of the value of time.

A common variation of the game is to let the aggressor win battles where both pieces have the same value. The default is a draw. This promotes aggression.
Post reply on HN