DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#2So when can we expect DeepMind vs OpenAI?
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#3So when can we expect DeepMind vs OpenAI?
You know that'd be really interesting as spectacle (in my opinion). You'd pick a game that neither company has worked on and pit them against one another.
From a research standpoint though, it'd be a waste of time.
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#4As discussed earlier this week (with link to technical paper)
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#5People mentioned in the article seem to doubt about applicability in the real world. If nothing else, I think it brings video game development closer to being an automated process. A game could simulate various conditions and design an infinite number of complex environments. Am I way off?
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#6An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to.
Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basically the only one at work, this time the "body" might have had just as much of an input. Even regular bots were good enough for most players anyway :).
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#7An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basicall…
They add artificial delay and other handicaps in order to compensate and match human shortcomings.
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#8An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basicall…
Source?
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#9An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basicall…
Source?
> at close range, FTW excelled in combat, in part because its reaction time was half that of a human's, and in part because its accuracy was 80 percent compared to the humans' 50 percent. [0]
I see now that reaction time was compensated for. No info on accuracy.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/googles-ai-group-mov...
Re: DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
#10An important detail is missing from the article (or perhaps I missed it). The AI had an advantage unrelated to intelligence. It's "plugged" into the game in a way that gives it a big advantage. Better reaction time, better aim, technical capabilities that a human player with "primitive" input devices and looking at the game through a low res window can't get close to. Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basicall…
People said the same thing about DeepMind's SC2 wins. Its actions per minute spiked to inhuman levels briefly and its efficiency and precision of control was nearly perfect. These types of criticisms completely miss the point.
People were attempting to build StarCraft agents for 10 years. 50000 actions per minute, complete vision of the entire map, predefined scripted build orders, restrictions on human opponents - nothing worked. A moderately competent player would destroy those old bots in 10 out of 10 games, it wasn't close.
These games have so much more to them than reaction time and dexterity, these new agents are doing something that simply wasn't possible before.