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

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

wildml.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 132 posts

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

#121

Post by goatlover »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #99
goatlover wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only one intelligence left standing is an outcome that most people would find negative. It's like if Skynet was the last survivor of the Terminator franchise. Why would anyone want that outcome?

I think the Borg, if successful in assimilating every known intelligence universally, would be a more appropriate analogy. As to why they would want it, I can only speak for myself but I think it's the most logical outcome if you extend the concept of self awareness to the universe.

But why would we want that outcome? The Borg are universally despised on ST by all other sentient races, and assimilation is resisted whenever possible.

It's the same as arguing that the replicators on Stargate SG1 should be the logical outcome. Technologically, they are superior, but they're not a preferred outcome. Similarly, one could argue that gray goo or Carpenter's creature from The Thing are superior, but we don't want a world of gray goo or things.

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

#122

Post by sillysaurus3 »

TrickyRick wrote: post #112
cthor wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll precommit to being very impressed if a bot can achieve >5k MMR in solo ranked or if a bot-controlled team wins a tier 6 (or higher) battle cup. When Checkers and Chess and Go pros were beaten by AI at the actual game , people were impressed, because it was impressive. (The goalpost moving involved claiming each consecutive game could not be solved.) I don't think anyone here is saying Dota 2 won't be solved even…

> I'll precommit to being very impressed if a bot can achieve >5k MMR in solo ranked or if a bot-controlled team wins a tier 6 (or higher) battle cup. Me too but it will never happen. Granted I haven't played DOTA but I've played many other competitive mulitplayer games and they all require one thing which bots currently lack: Communication. A bot playing the entire 5 man team though, that's a different story!

Using four skills in one hero is similar to using 20 skills across 5 heroes. It's not communication, just an extension of a single bot. (It's like a single player micro'ing all 5 bots.)

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

#123

Post by visarga »

thinkfurther wrote: post #63
visarga wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that all species have to fight for survival? Now there's one more player on the scene. Nothing has changed. We still have to adapt or die. If there's anything that is the largest danger to humanity is humanity itself.

Why not set off all nukes on the planet? All species have to "fight for survival", it'd just one more thing to adapt to, so no actual change. Why did you even respond to my comment? I mean, electrons are buzzing about all the time, this just another configuration, nothing changed. > If there's anything that is the largest danger to humanity is humanity itself. Yeah, and thanks for not helping.

Oh sorry, we should burn our computers and destroy all books about AI, that would stop it from appearing. Because we can outlaw matrix multiplication.

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

#124

Post by AndrewKemendo »

goatlover wrote: post #121
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Borg, if successful in assimilating every known intelligence universally, would be a more appropriate analogy. As to why they would want it, I can only speak for myself but I think it's the most logical outcome if you extend the concept of self awareness to the universe.

But why would we want that outcome? The Borg are universally despised on ST by all other sentient races, and assimilation is resisted whenever possible. It's the same as arguing that the replicators on Stargate SG1 should be the logical outcome. Technologically, they are superior, but they're not a preferred outcome. Similarly, one could argue that gray goo or Carpenter's creature from The Thing are superior, but we…

I argue because it's the logical progression of our species and continues the trajectory of our highest ideal: understanding the universe.

We can't do it with our biology, limits to understanding, reasoning and perception, so something that is not biologically restricted needs to be our successor.

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

#125

Post by chii »

gnaritas wrote: post #117
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I don't buy the "destroying jobs" argument is that we have tens of thousands of jobs just in the small country where I live that could be automated away by 1980s technology. For a US-specific example, look at the way you submit your taxes. That shit could be 99% automated away, like it is in many European countries already, and you have several large companies that would come crashing down, together with m…

Those jobs exist due to regulatory capture and the difficulty of changing tax law in a bitterly divided nation, just because a few industries found a way to use government to prevent progress and automation doesn't mean progress and automation isn't a danger; most industries won't be protected by regulatory capture. The "destroying jobs" thing is not an argument, it's a fact, it's what automation does, there's nothin…

> most industries won't be protected by regulatory capture.

And that's s good thing. It's unfortunate for those whose jobs are automated away, but without automation, goods and services can't keep up with the increase in population and demand. What's needed isn't prevention of automation, but how to increase the number of people with enough education to implement even more automation.

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

#126

Post by Buge »

TrickyRick wrote: post #112
cthor wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll precommit to being very impressed if a bot can achieve >5k MMR in solo ranked or if a bot-controlled team wins a tier 6 (or higher) battle cup. When Checkers and Chess and Go pros were beaten by AI at the actual game , people were impressed, because it was impressive. (The goalpost moving involved claiming each consecutive game could not be solved.) I don't think anyone here is saying Dota 2 won't be solved even…

> I'll precommit to being very impressed if a bot can achieve >5k MMR in solo ranked or if a bot-controlled team wins a tier 6 (or higher) battle cup. Me too but it will never happen. Granted I haven't played DOTA but I've played many other competitive mulitplayer games and they all require one thing which bots currently lack: Communication. A bot playing the entire 5 man team though, that's a different story!

Surely the different bots would communicate via RPCs or some other API. It wouldn't be much different from 1 single bot, especially if 1 bot decided to coordinate everything and the other 4 bots decided to just follow orders.

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

#127

Post by gnaritas »

chii wrote: post #125
gnaritas wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those jobs exist due to regulatory capture and the difficulty of changing tax law in a bitterly divided nation, just because a few industries found a way to use government to prevent progress and automation doesn't mean progress and automation isn't a danger; most industries won't be protected by regulatory capture. The "destroying jobs" thing is not an argument, it's a fact, it's what automation does, there's nothin…

> most industries won't be protected by regulatory capture. And that's s good thing. It's unfortunate for those whose jobs are automated away, but without automation, goods and services can't keep up with the increase in population and demand. What's needed isn't prevention of automation, but how to increase the number of people with enough education to implement even more automation.

I agree that it's a good thing, but your last statement is simply not in accordance with reality. The median IQ is 100, half the population is of below average intelligence, the problem we face is what to do when labor is no longer valued because machines do it all and half the population or more has no skills of value to the market. Education helps the top few percent stay ahead of the machines, it does nothing for the bulk of society who are not and will not ever be smart. Thus it's an economic problem of resource distribution, we must move away from a labor based economy if we allow automation to continue. We cannot handle massive automation with our current economic system.

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

#128

Post by zaroth »

astrojams wrote: post #30
zaroth wrote: post #24

Where do bots go to fight other bots in millions of games, and algorithms compete for superiority? I assume there must be an ongoing "marketplace" to match bots and run the simulations.

They play themselves. No need to play other bots.

Is that a fact? You don't ever see better performance by training in a heterogeneous environment? Or just, no one does it this way?

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

#129

Post by chii »

gnaritas wrote: post #127
chii wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most industries won't be protected by regulatory capture. And that's s good thing. It's unfortunate for those whose jobs are automated away, but without automation, goods and services can't keep up with the increase in population and demand. What's needed isn't prevention of automation, but how to increase the number of people with enough education to implement even more automation.

I agree that it's a good thing, but your last statement is simply not in accordance with reality. The median IQ is 100, half the population is of below average intelligence, the problem we face is what to do when labor is no longer valued because machines do it all and half the population or more has no skills of value to the market. Education helps the top few percent stay ahead of the machines, it does nothing for…

> bulk of society who are not and will not ever be smart.

It used to be that most people are illiterate, and cant do maths either. I'm sure if you measure IQ back then, it'd be quite low. And yet, the population got education, and lo and behold, the avg IQ increased.

Making the assumption that intelligence remains constant is wrong. I'd even suggest that most people are capable of doing things that you might consider require high intelligence, like writing code, or doing research, or designing solutions. Those who currently can't are merely so because of lack of opportunity (especially during formative years).

Making the money to increase the level of education will have the indirect effect of curbing the automation and unemployment problem.

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

#130

Post by mmirate »

gnaritas wrote: post #127
chii wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most industries won't be protected by regulatory capture. And that's s good thing. It's unfortunate for those whose jobs are automated away, but without automation, goods and services can't keep up with the increase in population and demand. What's needed isn't prevention of automation, but how to increase the number of people with enough education to implement even more automation.

I agree that it's a good thing, but your last statement is simply not in accordance with reality. The median IQ is 100, half the population is of below average intelligence, the problem we face is what to do when labor is no longer valued because machines do it all and half the population or more has no skills of value to the market. Education helps the top few percent stay ahead of the machines, it does nothing for…

> the problem we face is what to do when labor is no longer valued because machines do it all and half the population or more has no skills of value to the market

Need anything be done? You said it yourself: that portion of the population has no skills of value to the market. They're worthless.

Post reply on HN