Live data from Hacker News

Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

wildml.com

101–110 of 132 posts

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#101
post #96
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humanity currently is like a young child. We throw temper tantrums, make big messes and refuse to clean them up. We're terrible stewards of the earth and we serve no purpose as a species higher than existing and reproducing. We must grow up. But the fact that we're talking animals driven by primal urges makes this impossible through nurture alone. Either we change ourselves to the point of being a different species,…

> we serve no purpose as a species higher than existing and reproducing You say that as if there are (or can ever be) species which do have a higher purpose.

Basically any common purpose at all would suffice, like protecting life against harm. Fundamentally, we haven't agreed on the basic question: why are we here? Not 'why' as in how did we come to be, but why as in what do we want to achieve.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#102
post #15

While the author is probably right and this is no huge breakthrough in AI/ML, it is yet another example of AI/ML being able to do an activity that surpasses a human's ability. I am still waiting for an example of how AI/ML will complement a human's life as opposed to demonstrating an area where a human can be replaced.

How can you not see applications where replacing humans complements another human's life? I'm sure if you thought about it, you could see how self driving cars, real time translation, image to text for visually impaired, could be of some benefit to peoples lives? These applications might be automating a human out of a job, but they are also far superior at their narrow task. You can argue the total societal value net…

In this application who does this AI serve? A self driving car doesn't help me to become a better driver. It removes me from the driving equation all together.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#103
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The point I was trying to make is not whether it is impressive or not (it is impressive!), but that the general press hype about "AI breakthroughs that will soon kill us all and need regulation" is over the top and misleading. The probably massive engineering effort that went into this is, to me, more impressive than the algorithmic innovation, if any. Progress is made with small incremental improvements, in…

I feel that you are missing the whole point of "AI breakthroughs that will soon kill us all and need regulation". It's not about AI becoming self-aware and start to proactively taking over humanity starting from a Dota game, it's how we are finally capable of putting AI anywhere. The point Elon Musk was trying to show is that nowadays, we have the technology and the research to replace humans by AI for making judgeme…

"nowadays, we have the technology and the research to replace humans by AI for making judgement calls, no matter how difficult it is"

"if we are able to build a system to play Dota, we are also able to build AIs for anything at all"

These are stated like facts, but are not facts.

There are decisions made by humans which no AI system today can make well, and there are problems for which we have no idea how to build even mediocre AIs. The claim that someday we will have AGI is plausible but not yet certain to be true.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#104
post #7

Pretty much agree with everything in here. As I said in my earlier posting (and this blog post reiterates), a 1v1 Shadowfiend mid is highly technical and does not require a huge search space (like in Go or Chess) or any judgment; all it takes is a few tactics (e.g. creep blocking) and good aim for the razes. Also, the bot was already beaten 50+ times[1]. There are at least 3 strategies that work. It just goes to show…

Yeah, but the method of learning is interesting - unsupervised training in a VR world. As CPUs become faster, than these type of problems will fall much faster.

I am not sure it is completely unsupervised, iirc they said it was "coached". I don't think a bot can learn by itself to fake razes/perfect creep blocking by itself.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#105
post #75
post #7

Pretty much agree with everything in here. As I said in my earlier posting (and this blog post reiterates), a 1v1 Shadowfiend mid is highly technical and does not require a huge search space (like in Go or Chess) or any judgment; all it takes is a few tactics (e.g. creep blocking) and good aim for the razes. Also, the bot was already beaten 50+ times[1]. There are at least 3 strategies that work. It just goes to show…

If you look at this problem realistically it should be offensively easy for AI. The entire world state is available to you with perfect accuracy at a timescale that is trivial for computers but well beyond human reach. Also, there are clear goals and absolute limits to the functionality of the world. But the human players quickly adapted and developed new strategies and the bots just weren't able to adapt as quickly.…

If AI can augment the ability of 1 human then that 1 human + 1 AI can still replace people en masse. That's what automation does. The factories usually are not devoid of people, they just have fewer people and higher productivity than they used to.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#106
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that you are missing the whole point of "AI breakthroughs that will soon kill us all and need regulation". It's not about AI becoming self-aware and start to proactively taking over humanity starting from a Dota game, it's how we are finally capable of putting AI anywhere. The point Elon Musk was trying to show is that nowadays, we have the technology and the research to replace humans by AI for making judgeme…

"nowadays, we have the technology and the research to replace humans by AI for making judgement calls, no matter how difficult it is" "if we are able to build a system to play Dota, we are also able to build AIs for anything at all" These are stated like facts, but are not facts. There are decisions made by humans which no AI system today can make well, and there are problems for which we have no idea how to build ev…

"There are decisions made by humans which no AI system today can make well, (...)"

Exactly, that is precisely the point. Companies and business will just rush to implement the next big neural network to boost their business, no matter how immature the technology is.

And the claim is not about AGI, it's more about the little things. For some reason people like to think really big and exaggerated scenarios when it comes to AI.

Let's take web apps as an example. We can all agree that the state of the art of the current web programming is very poor: JavaScript, NodeJS, Electron, CSS, etc. The technologies are bloated, they are slow, full of hacks and workarounds, and so on. And yet... people use them for everything, it's like the Atwood's law described: "any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript"

I imagine that a similar scenario will happen with AI and neural networks. Can you imagine, for example, start dealing with an AI instead of an human when it comes to customer service? Maybe it is already happening, if you look for stories about Google's customer service in the internet, you would think everything is run by some sort of AI there.

Another example, look at Microsoft is doing with Visual Studio's telemetry data: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/07/21/what-weve...

I wouldn't be surprised if they built a neural network to feed all that data to and to have it to produce a UX "optimized" for mass consumption.

We are getting into a time in which everything will be powered by "AI" and I think that's what OpenAI is trying to regulate before we get every single business pestered with an half-assed implementation of neural network and data analytics.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#107

I hope someone can clarify. What are the definitions of AI and game complexity in this field? These all sound like very exiting developments. As I read about them a lot of times games such as Dota and Starcraft are touted as more complex than Chess or Go, but--at least with Starcraft, the AIs are limited in their number of actions to level the playing field. Isn't that like claiming humans can run faster than greyhou…

The reason why the AI is limited in number of actions is because the strategy is interesting, not so much the mechanical skill (think aimbots in FPS games). We know the AI will be better at clicking and moving units and would be capable of moving every unit optimally at all times. But is it also capable of coming up with creative strategies that humans could use as well?

I think both situations would be interesting to be honest. Have an unrestricted AI and a restricted AI - using ML they would probably develop vastly different ways of playing.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your translation is definitely crude, but I'm completely fascinated by it. I think it speaks to the part of hipster-ism that people react so strongly against. Why enjoy things 'ironically', or spend the effort becoming a connoisseur and a snob when you should really just enjoy things on a basic level. Like what you like, and rejoice in it.

:) I wish I had come up with something better than "genital area" heh, but "womb" also didn't strike me as quite right.

Perhaps replace it with "body"? That has strong sexual and romantic connotations in English while also being tasteful.

Alternately, "flower" or something more metaphorical. English poets tend to avoid the genitalia directly. We often follow the Nordic tradition of calling a spade anything but a spade.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#109
Is no one upset that they claimed `learned from self play only` when clearly it isn't? Creep blocking ? really? it learned a left over feature in original DOTA from warcraft in a new stand alone DOTA 2 client strictly on self play? And that distinct animation canceling the bot does? Look at amateur players and pro players (pro players do it more often then actually needed to `warm up` the muscles, similar to extra key strokes in SC). I wouldn't be surprised if the bot was trained in tons of pro openings. :/

Why not be clear about what has been done? Deepmind has said they do supervised learning first and other stuff on top of that. My guess is something similar to that happened.

Re: Hype or Not? Some Perspective on OpenAI’s DotA 2 Bot

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, do you have it spelled out somewhere? Want to spell it out? Otherwise, what's the point of bringing it up? Me too am completely unchallenged in my actual viewpoints, but I gotta run. That's pointless. > Basically your argument lies in the "virtue ethics" category of philosophy which argues that man-qua-man should be the best man possible. No, my argument is what I actually wrote, in short that I want the psycho…

No, I don't have it written out anywhere. I brought it up to test the waters somewhat and see what kind of response I would get. I'm hesitant to write it all out because I expect such a document would just be the source of opposition to implementation. Like putting war plans on the internet. If we make the progress we want I expect heavy opposition. However it's hard to build a movement in the shadows. I'd rather jus…

I'm not talking about perfection, I'm talking about not being covered in blood and shit so much of the time is all, about not being scared and driven.

> You state the decoupling of psychological problems with some other undefined idealized personhood.

Can you rephrase that? English isn't my first language, and "stating decoupling of" doesn't parse at all for me. It's like there's a sentence fragment missing.

I can't easily define personhood. I know I'm one, that other people are, and I even know animals I recognize as persons, too. With super small animals and plants it gets tricky, but I don't need to fully define first for it to exist, there is something there. Any theory is an abstraction that never fully matches a reality which would remain unchanged if that theory didn't exist. Any intelligence we see and can make theories about results from actual living entitites. There is absolutely no reason to outright assume it can make sense in a vacuum. What would the AGI be intelligent for? Why wouldn't it just calculate whether the heat death of the universe will happen, and shut off if it comes to the conclusion it will? Nothing it would do would make a difference then. Humans are different, more irrational if you will. I don't believe immortality will ever be achieved, I don't even find it desirable, and still I get out of bed in the morning. Everyone I love will die, and everything I do will turn to dust. I still love and make things.

So, what would that "spark" be for AGI? I just had the dumbest association, in the movie "The Fifth Element" there is this scene where the [I forgot what the name of her role was, the female protagonist anyway] is taking in all the atrocities of humanity and gets kind of frustrated, and doesn't feel like saving them or something like that. Then Bruce Willis kisses her and it's alright. As I said, it's dumb, but still, if all we give an AI is problems, why would it come up with solutions, and not more problems?

> I would argue, and the science generally agrees, that those "psychological problems" however defined are the other edge on the sword of intelligence and relative autonomy.

Obviously a piece of rock doesn't have any of the problems or joys we do, but that doesn't just mean anything and everything just "goes with the territory".

> If we make the progress we want I expect heavy opposition.

And you're just going to steamroll over it? Fantastic. You'll go to the friendly baker next and they'll happily sell you bread because they don't know. And you can't face them one on one, so you have to "achieve significant powers" in the shadows. And you're still not seeing the woods for all the trees. No, it's their fault for not understanding what you're not even telling them.

Post reply on HN