Teaching an AI to Draft Magic: The Gathering • Hacker News Board

Re: Teaching an AI to Draft Magic: The Gathering

#51

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #50

joshuamorton wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why do I need to show you my representation to convince you I possess human understanding of language? Why not? What makes you special? You're giving humans a double standard here. It's not like we have a particularly clear understanding of the human model of cognition. And since we're venturing further into the philosophical, I feel safe making the assertion that no, I, a priori, have no reason to believe that you…

>> You're giving humans a double standard here. There is no double standard and the matter is not philosophical. We know humans to be able to understand language- we do not need to prove it in any way, including by examining our representation of meaning in language. We don't know that statistical language models have an understanding of language, it's a very strong assumption to make that they do, and it must be jus…

How do we know humans understands language? How would you go about proving that to me?

Re: Teaching an AI to Draft Magic: The Gathering

#52

Post by c256 » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:06 AM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #14

Endy wrote: post #2

Given the information that this AI now has and the ability it's displayed, should WotC/Hasbro consider actively banning players from using AI to build standard-format Constructed decks? After all, if the author actually is correct and draftbot here picks better than humans, wouldn't it stand to reason that it could build optimal decks if given a "draft" which included multiple iterations of the program working in tan…

The author evaluted his model's "accuracy" by looking at how good it was at reproducing the decks in its training set card-for-card. That is no way to evaluate the quality of an M:tG deck. For instance, it can never tell us anything about "sleeper" decks, or about the value to an existing deck of new cards that are added to a format as sets rotate and so on. All that the accuracy metric used by the author can do is t…

I think you’re being too harsh here. The author didn’t come close to claiming that MtG drafting was solved; instead the claim is that they were able to train a fairly straightforward model to perform relatively well — within the metric of “as hand-judged by a proficient player” — to draft cards.

There is a vast amount of interesting space (both as AImresearch and as a fun toy) between “fully groks the current and predicatable near-future meta on a professional level” and “drafts playable decks”. As I read it, the OP is saying “Hey, I built something surprisingly simple that can draft playable decks. When I compare it to an available corpus of draft data from random human players, I think it does as well or better.” On the other hand, I don’t see anything like “I built AlphaGo for Magic drafts.”

Re: Teaching an AI to Draft Magic: The Gathering

#53

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 3:50 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #51

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You're giving humans a double standard here. There is no double standard and the matter is not philosophical. We know humans to be able to understand language- we do not need to prove it in any way, including by examining our representation of meaning in language. We don't know that statistical language models have an understanding of language, it's a very strong assumption to make that they do, and it must be jus…

How do we know humans understands language? How would you go about proving that to me?

Like I say, we know that already and we don't need to prove it.