By the ways, if anyone's interested, there was a deluge of deep learning papers today and one of them basically used deep learning to make deep learning models and it did better than humans.
DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
271–280 of 344 posts
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#272By the ways, if anyone's interested, there was a deluge of deep learning papers today and one of them basically used deep learning to make deep learning models and it did better than humans.
Source?
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#273By the ways, if anyone's interested, there was a deluge of deep learning papers today and one of them basically used deep learning to make deep learning models and it did better than humans.
[deleted]
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#274I will consider AI to human level.. When it can fully play gta san-andreas
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#275This 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…
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid. I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage. Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not…
Is it just me, or is anyone else a little disturbed that some of the greatest minds in AI are optimizing it for winning at a highly strategical/tactical game of warfare..
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the game wasn't balanced for the possibility of infinite micro, I think it's highly probable that there's a globally optimal strategy.
Could you give an example of what that might look like?
Perfect Muta flocks.
They regenerate, so the AI just has to keep them alive and do damage to win.
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's a mind game fueled by deceit, sophisticated and malleable planning, detecting subtle patterns (having a good gut feeling on what's going on) and on the pro scene knowledge of your opponent's style. The same is true of Go.
It's not really a mind game. A mind game is like Poker. Not games of perfect information.
I meant in the sense that you have to anticipate your opponents' intentions and perhaps try to mislead them as to your own.
It's different yet similar.
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar things weren't really said about Go or Chess. Both are perfect information games so, by definition, they can't involve deceit There's no need to try to detect subtle patterns in your opponents behavior because you have the entire game in front of you. That's not to say it's impossible but they do very much have their work cut out for them. It's an entirely different type of game that is much more difficult th…
> Similar things weren't really said about Go or Chess. Both are perfect information games so, by definition, they can't involve deceit I took deceit to mean tricking your opponent into thinking you were doing one thing when you were actually going to do another. You can't do that in Go or Chess? What I generally meant was maybe there's some really boring numerical number crunching or some simple mechanical algorithm…
>I took deceit to mean tricking your opponent into thinking you were doing one thing when you were actually going to do another. You can't do that in Go or Chess?
Well you can technically but it's horrible. No above amateur player tries to play 'trick moves'. Skilled players try to find the objectively best moves in the given position because tricks are just way to easily spotted.
The "betcha didn't see that coming!" thing is only something they do in dramatised films. Stracraft and other RTS games on the other hand abuse lack of information quite heavily. 'Cheese strategies' or unorthodox openings are very frequently used at the highest level.
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid. I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage. Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not…
From my naive perspective; in GO you do not need to be concerned with resource consumption/mgmt... in Starcraft and other RTS' you do. How much more complexity is added by resource mgmt vs just "legal play possibilities" as now you have "this move isnt legal because you dont have the requisite resource, thus you need to depend on completing those moves first" Are there any efforts applying deepmind to, say, commoditi…
> Supply chains for complex hardware manufacturing logistics?
That would go well with the concept of Seed Factory, which is a factory that could reproduce itself, from raw materials. If we can build a self replicating device, we will reach another kind of singularity. At the moment, the whole human race is such a self replicating system, but if we can take humans out of the loop we could ship it to an undeveloped area (another planet?) and have it create a city and industry for us.
Another application would be to ensure self reliance for humans in the post automation world. A self replicating factory, capable of solving the whole logistics puzzle of building repairing itself, as well as supporting its owners, would ensure that its owners don't depend on UBI or jobs.
Such a factory would initially need some industrial machines and robots, probably at minimum a 3D printer, some raw materials and high end pieces such as CPUs. Then it would gradually print and assemble more equipment.
It would eventually bootstrap like a compiler, being able to "compile" an identical factory from raw materials.
Keeping count of each object, its source parts, construction waste, energy spent in building it, processes and time they could "compile" an ecosystem of devices that carefully work together, recycling everything that is wasted in the process. As the capabilities of the factory increase, the process could be "recompiled" to take advantage of the new capacity.
The place of AI would be to optimize the process. Instead of a hand-made industrial compiler, it could search for a way to combine its resources in more masterful ways. It can keep track of more things than human planners (project managers?) can. It could potentially assess the needs and organize the industrial production for a whole country in a more efficient way than capitalism or communism could.
The beauty of a seed factory is in its initial price - under 5% of the price of a factory built from buying equipment, because it only needs the seed of the factory and raw materials. The factory would grow like an organism, expanding itself. Most of the factory would be self made. Just like a cell, or an animal.
[Wiki Book] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Seed_Factories
Re: DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid. I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage. Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not…
I don't agree with this. This was more true with the original StarCraft but with SCII a lot of the fine graining micro is automated. And although the computer will be able to reach 1000s of APM, a solid strategy with perfect timing will defeat it. It doesn't matter how well you split your zerglings or move your marines, when there are tanks busting through your front door.
Counterexample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKVFZ28ybQs