121–130 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back when I played SC2, you really didn't need a high APM to succeed, unlike SC1. SC2 offered some helpful mechanics that SC1 did not, such as the ability to select infinite units at once, or give commands to multiple structures at one. I think Sheth, a high level Zerg player, was famous for having under 100 APM.
I'll consider APM "not high" when it gets down to 12. Two actions per second is comfortably "high".
DeepMind’s last triumph (beating the best human Go players with AlphaGo) is impressive, but Go is a great fit for neural networks as they stand today; it’s stateless, so you can fully evaluate your position based on the state of the board at a given turn.
That’s not a good fit for most real-world problems, where you have to remember something that happened in the past. E.g. the ‘fog of war’ in a strategy game.
This is a big open problem in AI research right now. I saw a post around the time of AlphaGo challenging DeepMind to tackle StarCraft next, so it is very cool that they have gone in this direction.
When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, starcraft AIs aren't particularly good. Any player who has completed the single player campaign could beat all the AIs that came with the game that didn't cheat. And a player in the top 20 percent could beat any AI that has ever been created. AIs are really in an abysmal state for RTSes.
What about APM? Doesn't the speed at which the AI can input commands give it a big advantage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, starcraft AIs aren't particularly good. Any player who has completed the single player campaign could beat all the AIs that came with the game that didn't cheat. And a player in the top 20 percent could beat any AI that has ever been created. AIs are really in an abysmal state for RTSes.
What about APM? Doesn't the speed at which the AI can input commands give it a big advantage?
Additionally, humans can use economic reasoning (player built 3 barracks to they can't be building x, y and z). This can lead to AI being excessively safe (economically inefficient).
I suspect this will eventually lead to AI as a service for games. Rather than build a terrible AI that delays a game by months, approaching a company that can build a decent AI initially which gets better overtime would probably be ideal and create better experiences. Im curious if a startup can be built from this.
Is it harder to make an AI that is mediocre at playing the game vs one that is good? That is the main issue with making good AIs for games now. We want AIs (if you can call them that) that play kinda like humans but worse then the player as the player wants to win. Making an AI for game isn't about making a good AI. It is about making an AI that loses in a convincing manner. This is especially try for games like Star…
Looks like they are going to limit the APM of the AI. I wonder how they are going to decide the limit? I've never played StarCraft, but from what I understand very high APM is needed to play the game at the highest levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about APM? Doesn't the speed at which the AI can input commands give it a big advantage?
It's like saying that a Go AI would have a huge advantage because it can move instantly, giving the opponent no time to think. Perhaps it contributes, but strategy is far more important. See "The Marginal Advantage," an essay from the famous Starcraft player Day9: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/64514-competitive-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like saying that a Go AI would have a huge advantage because it can move instantly, giving the opponent no time to think. Perhaps it contributes, but strategy is far more important. See "The Marginal Advantage," an essay from the famous Starcraft player Day9: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/64514-competitive-...
Even if you add time control, Go is a turn based game. You have your own turn to think, unlike in a RTS game.
I meant to say that strategy trumps mechanics. Mechanical proficiency is necessary but not sufficient.
This is pretty interesting. DeepMind’s last triumph (beating the best human Go players with AlphaGo) is impressive, but Go is a great fit for neural networks as they stand today; it’s stateless, so you can fully evaluate your position based on the state of the board at a given turn. That’s not a good fit for most real-world problems, where you have to remember something that happened in the past. E.g. the ‘fog of war…
But I totally agree, long-term dependencies are an difficult problem. The DNC[0] by DeepMind is in my opinion a very important step in the correct direction to tackle this.
[0] https://deepmind.com/blog/differentiable-neural-computers/
I can't wait to see how far DeepMind can go in this area. I was initially skeptical that AlphaGo could defeat top human players, but then it happened. Who knows, perhaps one day AI can compete against progamers in GSL!
Competitive AI in broodwar already can destroy the best humans. AI can use strategies and tactics that human can't effectively do. Most notable is perfect splitting which changes the game quite a bit.
Who do you mean by "the best humans"? I've never heard of top-tier progamers such as Flash, Jaedong, Bisu, etc. losing to AI. In fact, I doubt any B-teamer or above would lose to an AI in a Bo3.