Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, you are correct. The unicorn example is in the original post about the research, but not in TFA. Unicorn example is in https://blog.openai.com/better... .

Once again, this seems to be a case of "AI" research re-discovering some basic math: if the function has discontinuities or is otherwise non-differentiable ("behaviors that are necessary to advance within the game do not help increase the score until much later.") then its optimization is hard or dependent on fortunate starting conditions.

Except they didn't say it was hard. Since you are too smart to even read before commenting, here's a picture, which shows how much better they've done than all other "AI" and a human.

One thing the summary didn't point out was that game three they didn't let the AI choose their own heroes. The humans basically conceded defeat; so for the third game they were just experimenting: The let the "audience" choose the heroes, and they chose heroes specifically which would be poor at playing the style which the computers had played so far, just to see if it could change its playing style to adapt to the new heroes. And the human team chose exactly the heroes that the AI chose for the first two games. After that draft, the AI's rating of its own chance of winning was 2.3%, based only on the draft. The AI adapted somewhat, but not much; and near the end of the game, the AI seemed to be doing a bunch of fairly sub-optimal things; like, it knew it couldn't really win, so it didn't know what to do except random micro.

So, it was an interesting data point -- particularly the importance of choosing the right set of heroes. But it was certainly not a victory for humans. The AI soundly trounced them except when it was purposely crippled.

Matches, post-game commentary, and other information available on the OpenAI Blog about the match.

Sounds like a classic case of not all heroes being equal (ie some are OP / some are too nerfed) if the odds were that obvious after only character selection.

One thing the summary didn't point out was that game three they didn't let the AI choose their own heroes. The humans basically conceded defeat; so for the third game they were just experimenting: The let the "audience" choose the heroes, and they chose heroes specifically which would be poor at playing the style which the computers had played so far, just to see if it could change its playing style to adapt to the new heroes. And the human team chose exactly the heroes that the AI chose for the first two games. After that draft, the AI's rating of its own chance of winning was 2.3%, based only on the draft. The AI adapted somewhat, but not much; and near the end of the game, the AI seemed to be doing a bunch of fairly sub-optimal things; like, it knew it couldn't really win, so it didn't know what to do except random micro.

So, it was an interesting data point -- particularly the importance of choosing the right set of heroes. But it was certainly not a victory for humans. The AI soundly trounced them except when it was purposely crippled.

Matches, post-game commentary, and other information available on the OpenAI Blog about the match.

Elon hasn't done shit with AI and can't speak from any experience.

Well, since he's the one and only big name and largest supporter behind OpenAI, the only real feasible contender/competitor to Google/TensorFlow, pardon me while I just presume that you're talking out of your behind and Elon Musk might actually know what he's talking about. He's proven it in Space and Electric Cars already too.

So unless you can point me to some significant contributions in the field of AI that you have been "studying for 15 years" (perhaps your involvement in OpenAI or TensorFlow would prove your expertise, no?) I'm trusting Musk's warnings more that some random Anon on slashdot, thank you very much.

Elon Musk has an AI Company he help found: OpenAI.

Maybe he just wants the government to stifle competition?

I love how CEOs like this guy and Elon (idiot) Musk are predicting the future of AI development. As opposed to say, leading AI researchers that are attending conferences and writing papers on the state of the art.

Hmm. You mean that same "idiot" who founded an artificial intelligence research organization to help fund the very things you hear about at those conferences and in those papers?