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

More on Dota 2

blog.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: More on Dota 2

#21

Post by [deleted] »

fridek wrote: post #16
lvoudour wrote: post #15

I know it has been mentioned a lot the past few days, but since the articles keep flowing about it I'll mention it again: It's a great feat and kudos to the openai team, but it is VERY unfair for the human players who rely on a sensory interface vs a direct API connection. That's unlike chess or go where the interface isn't important. The really impressive feat will be an AI that uses the same sensory information to…

Exactly my thoughts after Elon Musk's tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/896163163581825025 Unless AI is constrained to pro player max pointer move delta, click rate, and vision latency, I don't really see much difference between AI and a team of kids running with aimbot shouting "cyka cyka".

[deleted]

Re: More on Dota 2

#22

Post by thewhitetulip »

hobofan wrote: post #20
fridek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my thoughts after Elon Musk's tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/896163163581825025 Unless AI is constrained to pro player max pointer move delta, click rate, and vision latency, I don't really see much difference between AI and a team of kids running with aimbot shouting "cyka cyka".

> Actions accessible by the bot API, chosen at a frequency comparable to humans I would guess that this already includes all the delays you are asking for.

No, there is a difference. The human player has to see, react and then shot. The computer has a direct API.

gun.shoot()

as opposed to

image of a gun falls on the retina process the info sent by the eye synapses fired etc

:)

Re: More on Dota 2

#23

Post by NamTaf »

mannykannot wrote: post #14
NamTaf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reinforcement learning isn't a new idea - I did a Berkeley-based edX course on it a few years ago now and it was not state-of-the-art to my knowledge. That had no deep aspect to it, we just generated a reinfrocement algorithm that utilised a good measure of performance (specifically, it was pacman and the score value is pretty good at that) and changed a few algorithm weighting variables at each iteration. My underst…

> The key becomes finding the right scoring algorithms to tweak the neural net correctly towards the desired outcome. Does this not become something similar to supervised learning if you are scoring internal states of the game? (i.e. scoring on more than just the outcome and things that violate the rules?)

I don't know what they're scoring on; they've not elaborated on that. However, when I first read into OpenAI it looked like many of their game links were to simply view the screen. To that end, it wouldn't surprise me if they're identifying things you'd otherwise visually see in the game and simply working off them. To use internal states not immediately visible to the player would be sort of disingenuous IMO.

Re: More on Dota 2

#24

Post by alkonaut »

fridek wrote: post #16
lvoudour wrote: post #15

I know it has been mentioned a lot the past few days, but since the articles keep flowing about it I'll mention it again: It's a great feat and kudos to the openai team, but it is VERY unfair for the human players who rely on a sensory interface vs a direct API connection. That's unlike chess or go where the interface isn't important. The really impressive feat will be an AI that uses the same sensory information to…

Exactly my thoughts after Elon Musk's tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/896163163581825025 Unless AI is constrained to pro player max pointer move delta, click rate, and vision latency, I don't really see much difference between AI and a team of kids running with aimbot shouting "cyka cyka".

With the correct rates and latencies it should be possible to be fair though?

I.e., if an event occurs in the game, it's placed in a queue and the AI "sees" events pop out the other end of that queue, at a minimum latency and at a maximum rate (i.e. if too many things happen at once the AI is overloaded).

After that the AI makes decisions and puts the command in a command queue. The command queue works the same way: commands pop out the other side (to the game) after a minimum latency and at a maximum rate, to simulate the minimum roundtrip from input to action, and the maximum action rate.

Re: More on Dota 2

#26

Post by aaron695 »

jsnell wrote: post #3

Dupe, more discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031470

Unfortunately the HN title there which still isn't correct at time of writing this, distroyed a proper conversation.

(Assuming the original article didn't fix their title)

Re: More on Dota 2

#27

Post by lvoudour »

hobofan wrote: post #19
lvoudour wrote: post #15

I know it has been mentioned a lot the past few days, but since the articles keep flowing about it I'll mention it again: It's a great feat and kudos to the openai team, but it is VERY unfair for the human players who rely on a sensory interface vs a direct API connection. That's unlike chess or go where the interface isn't important. The really impressive feat will be an AI that uses the same sensory information to…

And the response as I've seen it on other threads: It probably doesn't make a big difference, and will outperform humans there too, and it would be a huge waste of computing power to train it that way. I think OpenAI should show that the AI can derive (a close aproximation of) the API data from videos, but I don't think that building a closed training loop would add much value here.

>And the response as I've seen it on other threads: It probably doesn't make a big difference, and will outperform humans there too, and it would be a huge waste of computing power to train it that way.

Well they may be right about the "outperform" part but they are dead wrong about the waste of time/effort/energy part. I mean if (at least human-like) real-time video/audio recognition and decision making is not an impressive AI feat, I don't know what is. I'm no expert in the field but claiming that plugging into an API and crunching numbers is more important than sensory-based decision making, just doesn't sound right

Re: More on Dota 2

#28

Post by hacker_9 »

hobofan wrote: post #19
lvoudour wrote: post #15

I know it has been mentioned a lot the past few days, but since the articles keep flowing about it I'll mention it again: It's a great feat and kudos to the openai team, but it is VERY unfair for the human players who rely on a sensory interface vs a direct API connection. That's unlike chess or go where the interface isn't important. The really impressive feat will be an AI that uses the same sensory information to…

And the response as I've seen it on other threads: It probably doesn't make a big difference, and will outperform humans there too, and it would be a huge waste of computing power to train it that way. I think OpenAI should show that the AI can derive (a close aproximation of) the API data from videos, but I don't think that building a closed training loop would add much value here.

Depends what the aim is, to create general AI? Or just a good DOTA bot? If the goal is the former, then vision will play a huge part.

Re: More on Dota 2

#29

Post by hobofan »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #22
hobofan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actions accessible by the bot API, chosen at a frequency comparable to humans I would guess that this already includes all the delays you are asking for.

No, there is a difference. The human player has to see, react and then shot. The computer has a direct API. gun.shoot() as opposed to image of a gun falls on the retina process the info sent by the eye synapses fired etc :)

I considered that, and I don't think there is. The frequency of the actions is already a result of the "actual time it takes to executr the action" + "all human delays". If you limit the bot to that frequency, everything is accounted for.

----

EDIT: On second thought, there might be a difference, in that this leaves the bot with more time to think, unless you limit the time of that. Not sure if that would dramatically influence the performance though.

Re: More on Dota 2

#30

Post by radarsat1 »

lvoudour wrote: post #27
hobofan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the response as I've seen it on other threads: It probably doesn't make a big difference, and will outperform humans there too, and it would be a huge waste of computing power to train it that way. I think OpenAI should show that the AI can derive (a close aproximation of) the API data from videos, but I don't think that building a closed training loop would add much value here.

>And the response as I've seen it on other threads: It probably doesn't make a big difference, and will outperform humans there too, and it would be a huge waste of computing power to train it that way. Well they may be right about the "outperform" part but they are dead wrong about the waste of time/effort/energy part. I mean if (at least human-like) real-time video/audio recognition and decision making is not an im…

It's their long-term goal: https://blog.openai.com/universe/
Post reply on HN