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

DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

#11

Post by yodon »

close04 wrote: post #6

An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basicall…

The original technical paper (I posted a link elsewhere in this thread) discusses that the AI only had access to the same visual imagery a human player can access

Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

#12

Post by drchewbacca »

gameoflife wrote: post #5

People mentioned in the article seem to doubt about applicability in the real world. If nothing else, I think it brings video game development closer to being an automated process. A game could simulate various conditions and design an infinite number of complex environments. Am I way off?

I saw an interesting talk about proc gen which was basically saying a lot of studios are moving from hand crafting to procedural tools. For example if you want to fill a park with trees you don't place them by hand, you just specify the density and type of trees and let the computer place them. The advantage is that if you want to reshape the park later you can just click and drag. Then when you are happy you go though and hand craft more content on top.

They were saying there is a critical mass where procedural tools feed into procedural tools and a lot of the pipeline is automated, then it becomes extremely cheap to make more content.

So back to your point: I think this is where we will see AI more in game dev, it will be as smart tools to empower creators to make stuff more easily. I don't think the AI will make the game, I think it will assist the humans with the creation of it.

Here is a talk about Spiderman and how much proc gen they used there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aw9uyj9MAE

Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

#15

Post by simcop2387 »

sorenn111 wrote: post #3
aelhaji wrote: post #2

So when can we expect DeepMind vs OpenAI?

You know that'd be really interesting as spectacle (in my opinion). You'd pick a game that neither company has worked on and pit them against one another. From a research standpoint though, it'd be a waste of time.

It wouldn't be a waste of research on that game. But for the broader community it might effectively be. I think it'd be a great way to setup a competition among grad students though.

Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

#16

Post by jvanderbot »

wickoff wrote: post #10
close04 wrote: post #6

An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basicall…

People said the same thing about DeepMind's SC2 wins. Its actions per minute spiked to inhuman levels briefly and its efficiency and precision of control was nearly perfect. These types of criticisms completely miss the point. People were attempting to build StarCraft agents for 10 years. 50000 actions per minute, complete vision of the entire map, predefined scripted build orders, restrictions on human opponents - n…

Agree. But OP is saying in a battle wits, its hard to factor out the battle of wrists.

Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

#17

Post by Zenst »

A benchmark for me would be a game that can handle a MMOPG like eve-online. What with certain tactics in game valid - like griefing, spies etc. An AI can handle that would be not only impressive, but learn a set of skills that many would feel uncomfortable about being within the realms of AI.

After all, humans cheat, would we want that allowed by an AI. Equally an AI could stumble upon an exploit in a game and not realise it is an expliot - ie item duplication.

But this opens up a whole new aspect of gaming that AI has yet to touch that I'm aware of.

Though I feel we are still a way of from having computers with a moral-coprocessor, and still very much early days with AI. But that is certainly something that is within our lifetimes.

Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

#18

Post by Mirioron »

wickoff wrote: post #10
close04 wrote: post #6

An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basicall…

People said the same thing about DeepMind's SC2 wins. Its actions per minute spiked to inhuman levels briefly and its efficiency and precision of control was nearly perfect. These types of criticisms completely miss the point. People were attempting to build StarCraft agents for 10 years. 50000 actions per minute, complete vision of the entire map, predefined scripted build orders, restrictions on human opponents - n…

That's because that AI would always have some exploitable flaws that people pick up on really quickly. I wouldn't be sure that DeepMind wouldn't fall into the same problem, it would simply take longer to get there.

Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

#19

Post by 781 »

Zenst wrote: post #17

A benchmark for me would be a game that can handle a MMOPG like eve-online. What with certain tactics in game valid - like griefing, spies etc. An AI can handle that would be not only impressive, but learn a set of skills that many would feel uncomfortable about being within the realms of AI. After all, humans cheat, would we want that allowed by an AI. Equally an AI could stumble upon an exploit in a game and not re…

> A benchmark for me would be a game that can handle a MMOPG like eve-online

I don't think they managed to connect Excel to their game environments yet.

Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too

#20

Post by close04 »

wickoff wrote: post #10
close04 wrote: post #6

An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basicall…

People said the same thing about DeepMind's SC2 wins. Its actions per minute spiked to inhuman levels briefly and its efficiency and precision of control was nearly perfect. These types of criticisms completely miss the point. People were attempting to build StarCraft agents for 10 years. 50000 actions per minute, complete vision of the entire map, predefined scripted build orders, restrictions on human opponents - n…

> These games have so much more to them than reaction time and dexterity

Sure but they're still an important part of the end result which most people don't consider. For many the title just says "AI beats human mind". If you want to know which mind is better then compare minds, all else equal.

"Dumb" bots have been kicking player's butts for years now. Not because of intelligence but because everything else was not equal: great aim, great reaction time, great situational awareness. So aren't you curious how much the "intelligence" part evolved?

Imagine a 100m sprint where one of the runners has to wear army boots and backpack. Would you even bother drawing a conclusion?

Post reply on HN