OpenAI at the Dota 2 World Championships

Post by pcnix » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:58 AM UTC

flunhat wrote: post #130

electrograv wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you're moving the goalposts forward whenever AI surpasses them . This time you move the goalposts forward by requiring a proof of native English proficiency. Next time it will be something else; that goalpost will be achieved, and when it is, you will move the goalpost forward yet again. Perhaps you'll require the Turing+++ test be conducted with audio rather than text. Then it will be video. Then a physical a…

The Turing test is hardly a new measure - it's been around for ~70 years and hasn't been passed yet. But otherwise I agree with what you said - this is just my personal measure of when we'll be in society-shaking territory.

Post by pennaMan » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 9:29 AM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #146

intended wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your looking at the blizzard school of balance. Think going to a theme park. It's very pretty and attractive but underneath it all, the experience is always on rails without any deviation. That's one way to deal with complexity. I hate those games, because the moment you become human, and try to do something intuitive but undefined and unwanted by the programmers, you get penalized. Dota doesnt do that, although the…

> I hate those games, because the moment you become human, and try to do something intuitive but undefined and unwanted by the programmers, you get penalized. That's what I loved about Ultima Online. Characters were basically "Here are 100 possible skills to learn and 5 base stats. You get 700 points to distribute among your skills. Good luck" My fav part was that doing things that require strength made you stronger,…

Post by nnnnnande » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 9:35 AM UTC

keerthiko wrote: post #136

dvt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the interview, they literally said they coached it to have certain behaviors.

They said "yes, it does that"/"it's been known to do that", not "it was coached to do that". Just as a "We've seen it do that before."

Post by nnnnnande » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 9:41 AM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #100

dvt wrote: post #87

Saw this live and as someone that's played Dota for many years, it's not as impressive as people make it out to be. A Shadowfiend 1v1 is primarily a test of mechanical skill and not judgment. A similar comparison is if a Counter-Strike or Quake bot would instantly snap to your head getting a headshot. Like, yeah, cool I guess, and it would beat 100% of human players 100% of the time, but it's not even remotely as imp…

> but I think that it was one of those cases where it was "coached" (same as the creep blocking). What makes you think that? In the interview, they explicitly disclaim this.

Post by StavrosK » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 9:51 AM UTC

sondr3 wrote: post #125

thefreeman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that they specifically said there was no domain-specific knowledge. iirc they said they didn't "teach it the rules of dota" but they also said the training involved "coaching". I interpret that to include showing the bot useful techniques (like creep blocking) which the AI then learned leads to higher win rates, etc.

They also mentioned that in the beginning the bot figured out that the best way to win was to not play the game (aka hiding in it's own base). Then it started running around wildly, dying to enemy towers in the wrong lanes at the map. So it definitely took some nudging getting it to do something more than being AFK in base.