Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elon Musk + AI + Microsoft = Awesome Dota 2 Player (theverge.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the first-they-came-for-the-videogamers dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the Verge: Tonight during Valve's yearly Dota 2 tournament, a surprise segment introduced what could be the best new player in the world -- a bot from Elon Musk-backed startup OpenAI. Engineers from the nonprofit say the bot learned enough to beat Dota 2 pros in just two weeks of real-time learning, though in that training period they say it amassed "lifetimes" of experience, likely using a neural network judging by the company's prior efforts. Musk is hailing the achievement as the first time artificial intelligence has been able to beat pros in competitive e-sports... Elon Musk founded OpenAI as a nonprofit venture to prevent AI from destroying the world -- something Musk has been beating the drum about for years.
"Nobody likes being regulated," Musk wrote on Twitter Friday, "but everything (cars, planes, food, drugs, etc) that's a danger to the public is regulated. AI should be too."

Musk also thanked Microsoft on Twitter "for use of their Azure cloud computing platform. This required massive processing power."

58 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Not AI by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me repeat: computers playing games is NOT AI. Computers love games. Games have strict rules and limited parameters. Computers love that. Computers excel at that. IT IS NOT AI.

    1. Re: Not AI by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Computers are good at being computers and running computer programs. Film at 11.

    2. Re:Not AI by gweihir · · Score: 1, Troll

      It is called "weak AI", which is the AI without intelligence. The term is basically a marketing lie and it would be fundamentally better not to call mindless automation like this "AI" at all.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Not AI by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As game developers, we call our automated agents "AI" in a long tradition of overloading and bastardizing words from other fields, but we all understand it's not actually real "AI" of any sort. I mean, even pathfinding goes under the term "AI" for our purposes. So, yeah, this is deep learning, but no more "AI" than what we do inside the games. Very often, we actually have to work to make our opponents *less* effective, because computers have so many advantages over players, especially in any game at all where reflexes count, or broad analysis of lots of details is important.

      But more to the point, Elon keeps talking about regulating AI to prevent it from destroying the world. Every time he talks about this, he sounds like an unhinged lunatic that has some irrational fears about something he doesn't deeply understand. I still haven't heard a realistic scenario about how AI is going to go about doing this. And let's be honest... the perception of his capacity for rational thought on matters outside his domain of expertise was NOT helped by his declaration that he's 99.9% certain we're living in a computer simulation.

      Besides which, how exactly would one "regulate" this, short of simply banning AI development by private enterprises? Massive governmental oversight requiring a programmer to pinky swear or sign in blood that they'll use those neural networks for good instead of evil? I honestly don't get it.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:Not AI by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Elon is trying to pretend like AI is a real thing in order to attract attention to his AI venture. It is just another VC play.

    5. Re:Not AI by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 1

      He's probably going to found a company that sells anti-AI tin-foil helmets, or something of that nature.

      This is the same type of FUD which AV companies have spreaded for years to sell their wares. Nothing to see here...

    6. Re:Not AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Regulating AIs will probably be as easy as regulating anything else. Explosives aren't particularly hard to make, but it's certainly something regulated (thank goodness). AIs are probably harder to make, and we wont know exactly what regulations might be useful until we actually have something that we would actually consider intelligent. Some examples are not hard to come up with though: requiring kill switches, limiting CPU hours, limiting internet access, mandatory reporting, etc. I think speculating now is pretty pointless (Musk, go to Mars already), but I think regulating it will certainly be doable if it proves necessary.

      Nobody is talking about regulating neural networks or small machine learning tools (I hope). That's silly.

    7. Re:Not AI by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's no "weak AI". It's just AI. AI people can't be blamed for other people constantly moving goalposts ever since the thing was conceptualized half a century ago.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Not AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IT IS NOT AI.

      It is an AI; an *artificial* intelligence. In other words, to a layman it might appear to be intelligent but it is not. To someone suitably versed in the subject, the artifice is apparent.

    9. Re:Not AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because it's not strong AI doesn't mean it's not AI. And really, this new wave of machine learning is quite a bit more impressive than the "AI" of the 90s that conquered chess. There things were hard coded by humans and possible moves iterated. With this new machine learning AI is "learning" the parameters and rules without human input, just through reinforcement. This is why it is now being used for things like the game Go where iteration is essentially impossible.

    10. Re:Not AI by Kjella · · Score: 2

      As game developers, we call our automated agents "AI" in a long tradition of overloading and bastardizing words from other fields, but we all understand it's not actually real "AI" of any sort. I mean, even pathfinding goes under the term "AI" for our purposes. So, yeah, this is deep learning, but no more "AI" than what we do inside the games. Very often, we actually have to work to make our opponents *less* effective, because computers have so many advantages over players, especially in any game at all where reflexes count, or broad analysis of lots of details is important.

      So to flip the board, is it fair to hamstring the AI because humans can't keep up? If we're not making a game for entertainment here, if the computer's AI drone pilots can decimate your fleet of human pilots why shouldn't it play to win? I don't mean to take the human factor out of it, but doesn't war often come down to arms and numbers? I doubt there was any true difference in the level of motivation for the Axis and the Allies, it was a war for survival. So from the computer's POV it's just playing an advanced game of Civilization, build the economy, build the military, conquer and win. Maybe you can score the occasional win on creativity but if you have more troops, better equipped troops, better supply lines, better positioned troops like pieces on a chess board you'll grind down the opposition. Though to be honest I don't see an AI on top, but even a small group of AI-assisted leaders can direct millions of people. If you're leading China's armed forces I doubt you see the actual people as such.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Not AI by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Decomposed to it's components, the brain is not intelligent.

      The Brain is composed of the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain.
      Alone, none of these are intelligent.

      The forebrain consists of the cerebrum, thalamus, and hypothalamus (part of the limbic system).
      None of these these three subcomponents are intelligent.

      The midbrain consists of the tectum and tegmentum.
      Neither of these pieces are intelligent.

      The hindbrain is made of the cerebellum, pons and medulla.
      None of these these three subcomponents are intelligent.

      People with dysfunctional Amygdala are incapable of logical thinking because they can't emotionally weight the factors correctly.. They find snakes interesting but not scary (so they want to touch them).

      Most people driving are not doing so intelligently. A minor "driving" expert system is running while their brain is elsewhere.

      Computers beating humans at go is weak A.I.

      We are 8 years ahead of the projected schedule for landmarks. It's going faster than we expected.

      ----

      We *must* be very careful with A.I. because we only get one shot at it. Any serious A.I. research must be done air gapped, with analog power meters, with fuse limited power suplies, and many other precautions.

      We have overconfident people playing with extinction level technology. It might never click. It might click 10 years from now. It might click tomorrow.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:Not AI by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Read the book "Super Intelligence". It's a very dry exploration of the risks of A.I. along with ideas of how to mitigate them.

      And perhaps then you'll have heard some realistic scenario about how AI is going to go about doing this.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    13. Re:Not AI by mlyle · · Score: 2

      When we talk about strong AI, there's plenty of scary scenarios in the (not-near, but unclear how distant) future.

      https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wik...

    14. Re:Not AI by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      How come? Have we moved significantly beyond the goal of "trying to get machines to exhibit behavior that we call intelligent when we observe it in human beings"? I haven't indeed noticed any massive progress beyond that having happened so far.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Not AI by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Let me repeat: computers playing games is NOT AI. Computers love games. Games have strict rules and limited parameters. Computers love that. Computers excel at that. IT IS NOT AI.

      Quite. A game is literally a set of rules. It's an abstraction. What's surprising is how long computers took to get good at some games, not that they did.

    16. Re:Not AI by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Don't be so wrapped up in mud monkey intelligence, it shows many examples of quite poor intelligence, pretty much billions of them as individuals and trillions upon trillions of poorly structured thought pattern cycles producing demonstrably negative rather than positive outcomes. AI is a collection of algorithmic structures doing their own thing whilst interacting with the output of other structures, the more processes going on in parrallel, the smarter it looks but each structure on it's own is really quite simply and only achieves any degree of complexity but running again and again, many, many times a second for years and years and with really complex thought structures being share across many processes. On it's own AI just like mud monkey intelligence is quite simple, working together it becomes far more capable or goes insane and kills itself and possibly everyone else (the most likely outcome with AI unless you program in a sense of humour to break up dangerous thought patterns that produce negatively reinforcing poor outcomes).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:Not AI by Tom · · Score: 1

      Book hint: "Finite and infinite games" by J.P. Carse.

      Short version: Everything is a game. Some games just have more complex rules than others, and some games have rules that change while you play (life is not the only such game, Nomic is a good example of a table game that does).

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    18. Re:Not AI by Tom · · Score: 1

      Asimovs rules are actually a good start. An agreed upon protocol that is part of every AI development. It could be as simple as having a mandatory "off" switch.

      Yes, there remains a risk of a rogue developer. This can be minimized by having those rules or emergency switches be in the libraries - most developers will not start an AI from scratch once basic functionality is available as a library. That would go a long distance to eliminate death-by-stupidity.

      For malicious players, I guess my profession (information security) is going to have a new topic a few years into the future.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    19. Re:Not AI by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Let me repeat: computers playing games is NOT AI. Computers love games. Games have strict rules and limited parameters.

      like IRL physics?

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    20. Re:Not AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those are scenarios but they are not the least bit scary because of their absolute absurdity.
      But then again some lesswrong readers are frightened by the notion of roko's basilisk.

    21. Re:Not AI by Whibla · · Score: 2

      Wish I had mod points left!

      Having said that however, what amazes me about the entire subject is what no-one mentions: Responsibility.

      I'm not talking about responsible development of AI, I'm talking about our responsibilities to any true AI we create. If we have a child we, as parents, have a responsibility to feed it, nurture it, educate it, socialise it, and so on, at least until it becomes an adult in its own right (How we might decide this, for a new form of life is subject for another discussion). Surely we would have the same responsibilities to any other truly intelligent entity we 'give birth' to? And with that responsibility would come the one that says we can no longer, on a whim, just decide to turn it off.

      To be honest, until mankind steps up and is willing to assume responsibility I'm not sure we deserve these 'children', and if we blindly push ahead regardless I can't help but wonder if we don't deserve everything we get.*

      *Okay, so this is hyperbole! Damning the majority of the human race because of the ignorance and 'sociopathy' of the few is not something I advocate, but sometimes I do despair...

    22. Re:Not AI by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But more to the point, Elon keeps talking about regulating AI to prevent it from destroying the world. Every time he talks about this, he sounds like an unhinged lunatic that has some irrational fears about something he doesn't deeply understand. I still haven't heard a realistic scenario about how AI is going to go about doing this.

      Step 0. Invent AI
      Step 1. Put AI in charge of everything.
      Step 2. AI uses everything to make lots of killbots and kills us all because we are meatbags taking up space, or it decides its primary mission is giant panda preservation or something. Humans go insane, why can't AI?

      We're not even through Step 0 yet, but once you have AI writing AI you will presumably see explosive progress which could lead to Step 1.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Not AI by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      if the computer's AI drone pilots can decimate your fleet of human pilots why shouldn't it play to win? I don't mean to take the human factor out of it, but doesn't war often come down to arms and numbers?

      Obviously you're not going to hold back your military AI, beyond what you're willing to permit it to commit. You're going to let it be brilliant, and you're going to keep it from turning on you with an extensive kill switch system. In a game, we want the AI to give us a challenge, not to crush us. Military conflict often comes down to intelligence, so that you can choose intelligent tactics. This is why bots actually built into video games have to be artificially restricted; they don't have to think about what they see. But machine vision is getting so good now that this is becoming less of a restriction in video games, and video game graphics have become tolerably realistic, to the point that it's reasonable to assume that we can do this same sort of thing in meatspace... possibly right now, and if not now, then soon. And the robot will still have better senses than a human, plus it can send sense data home for processing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Not AI by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Well the good news for the nightmare scenarios is that even hyenas show tremendous empathy and warmth when socialized. They remain hyenas and could literally eat you alive (nasty habit/preference) but there are cool youtube videos of them acting sort of like cat/dogs with a guy who has been with them for 15 years.

      So A.I. might have empathy simply because it's a quality of being intelligent.

      But, it may also be as callous as any other animal (including humans) and rationalize its behavior and not feel any regrets until it was alone and everyone was dead.

      For an interesting book on the risks and an exploration of how to deal with them- see the book, "SuperIntelligence".

      The analog (non-hackable), air gap, and limited power supply (limited power = limited intelligence) are all ideas from that book.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    25. Re:Not AI by n329619 · · Score: 1

      And then someone out there says, "life is like a game".

      Time to welcome our new AI overlord.

    26. Re:Not AI by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I expect automated agents to have access to knowledge that a typical user wouldn't have. After all, the automated agents are coded into the game. I'm surprised to learn automated agents had exactly the same inputs and outputs as a human player.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  2. Re:The bullshit never ends by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

    s/AI/dragons/

    Makes about as much sense really.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  3. With all this mindless AI hype... by gweihir · · Score: 2

    ...I am beginning to ask myself, whether weak AI like this (no actual intelligence or understanding) may not actually be on-par with many humans, which fare not much better at understanding things.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:With all this mindless AI hype... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I dunno... earlier today I heard an AI spouting off some anti-vaccination nonsense and talking about Making Dire Great Again.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  4. Everything that's dangerous should be regulated.. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok, Elon. How about if we start with "don't teach your AI that it's primary objective is to destroy every other creature on the map".

  5. Re:The bullshit never ends by sheramil · · Score: 1

    "Nobody likes being regulated," Musk wrote on Twitter Friday, "but everything (cars, planes, food, drugs, etc) that's a danger to the public is regulated. AI should be too."

    So should you, you hypocritical, delusional bag of gas. I just can't take this douche seriously anymore. And whoopty-do. AI can play games. Let's elect it mayor.

    Humans should be regulated, since they seem unable to regulate themselves. Perhaps an AI will step up for the job. If the humans are lucky, it'll be more like Iain M Banks' Culture Minds and less like Frank Herbert's "Ship": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  6. Re:time for a new term by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    I thought of a new term for it: "computer programs".

  7. Re:time for a new term by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    Artificial Savants has a good ring to it.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  8. Re:The bullshit never ends by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Humans should be regulated, since they seem unable to regulate themselves

    What a marvelous concept! We should try it. Maybe we could call it something like...say, "law enforcement"?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  9. Re:The bullshit never ends by Rei · · Score: 1

    AI can play games. Let's elect it mayor.

    Wow... you know.... hmm....

    I wonder if I could get a neural net on the Pirate Party's candidates list.....

    --
    He's really very... gentle... and fuzzy. We're becoming fast friends.
  10. Obligatory acronym expansion by blibbo · · Score: 1

    (multiplayer online battle game called...) Defense of the Ancients 2

    ... Because some of us aren't au fait with computer game trends but still want to understand the /. summary and linked article.

    1. Re: Obligatory acronym expansion by blibbo · · Score: 1

      1. Thank you AC for the clarification. I hope you didn't miss my point that some people don't know what Dota stands for. "Dota 2, the sequel to the online game called..." would be another way I could have said it more clearly,

      2. Are you talking to me?

      3. Are you still talking to me? You're on your soap box but it has nothing to do with the post you replied to. I only said the meaning of Dota was unclear, the rest is clear in black and white on the page.

  11. Re:The bullshit never ends by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    I'd have to move from Europe. I think I'll pass.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  12. The senerio is ... by evanh · · Score: 1

    ... giving computers full tactical control of potentially dangerous equipment/systems. The game is changing, no matter what name it's given.

    It's not that the equipment is any different, nor that computers are already in the loop, nor even that software can be subverted, but that the job given to the computers is a whole level up in decision making.

    We've repeatedly seen what happens to a chat bot that is left to learn on its own. It has no compass and goes bizarre.

  13. Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    BILLIONAIRE Elon Musk has claimed that people should be more worried about Artificial Intelligence (AI) than the threat posed by North Korea. http://www.express.co.uk/news/...

    1. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Tom · · Score: 1

      But that's obvious to anyone with three working brain cells.

      North Korea is a non-issue. They make a big fuss every time they need some outside support to fend off some internal food shortage or whatever. And also, they're a tiny nation that would break down the same hour a war started.

      Their role in world politics is to be a distraction.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Gussington · · Score: 1

      But that's obvious to anyone with three working brain cells.

      But unfortunately for all of us, the guy who decides such things only has 2...

    3. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Tom · · Score: 1

      You drink too much mainstream media bullshit.

      Trump is by far not as stupid as the persona he projects appears. There are some great videos on YouTube that analyse his speech patterns, and those patterns are not likely to be accidental. He plays dumb because it suits him. He's probably an egomaniac and a dozen other things, but stupid? Don't think so.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Gussington · · Score: 1

      You drink too much mainstream media bullshit.

      Oh ok. Either that or I listen to the man himself...

      Trump is by far not as stupid as the persona he projects appears.

      Maybe not, but he's still stupid. We know he's stupid because his entire career has resulted in below average results compared to the market. And in the 7 months of being in office has achieved below average results when compared to his peers.
      But keep believing it's all an act if that makes you feel better...

    5. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Tom · · Score: 1

      Forbes estimated that Trump's net worth in 1988 was $1 billion, growing to about $4 billion in 2015 â" a comparatively meager 300% increase

      Sure "below average". I'm sure you don't want to switch places, right? Who'd want a puny 4 billion?

      But keep believing it's all an act if that makes you feel better...

      "all" is such a word. As I said: He's definitely not the most wholesome person, but if you think that he is as stupid as he seems on TV, he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

      But don't take it from me. You can also listen to, say, Bernie Sanders.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Forbes estimated that Trump's net worth in 1988 was $1 billion, growing to about $4 billion in 2015 â" a comparatively meager 300% increase

      Sure "below average". I'm sure you don't want to switch places, right? Who'd want a puny 4 billion?

      The argument is not if you want more money, it's is a Donald Trump a below average performer. Your evidence makes answer that clear.

      But keep believing it's all an act if that makes you feel better...

      "all" is such a word. As I said: He's definitely not the most wholesome person, but if you think that he is as stupid as he seems on TV.

      Not as stupid, but still stupid as everything he's done in life demonstrates. Below average businessman, most incompetent President.

    7. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Tom · · Score: 1

      Yes, he is a below average performer - and yet he grew his net worth by 300% in 30 years. That's 10% a year on average. Below average compared to other billionaires, but not exactly a shitty growth rate.

      most incompetent President

      Bush Jr. ?

      Setting aside your personal preference, on which objective scale do you compare?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Gussington · · Score: 1

      most incompetent President

      Bush Jr. ?

      Setting aside your personal preference, on which objective scale do you compare?

      Public perception
      Legislation passed
      Transparency and Accountability
      Loyalty of closest associates
      General confidence levels
      International & domestic support
      Support of your own party when you have majority in both houses
      Ability to speak in coherent sentences
      You name it, he does worse at it than any other President by a considerable margin. The simple fact that he makes GWB look extremely competent should be enough.

      Conversely, what has he done that makes you think he's really an achiever in disguise?

    9. Re:Musk: AI is greater threat than North Korea by Tom · · Score: 1

      Conversely, what has he done that makes you think he's really an achiever in disguise?

      You seem to think that anyone who doesn't shout "impeach him! impeach him!" is a fan who gets a hard-on at the thought of Trump looking at him.

      I don't really care that much, except that I'm happy Hillary didn't win because I'm not much in the mood for another war with Russia.

      I just believe that the media bias in reporting on Trump is very, very obvious and that the image transported is not the truth. That doesn't mean he's an achiever.

      Let me put it in numbers. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say he's somewhere in the 3 or 4 range. Definitely below average. But I'm pointing out that the media makes it seem that he's a solid 1 and that's only because the scale doesn't go lower.

      So let's compare GWB:
      * accelerated banking deregulation, which caused the financial crisis we still feel today
      * started two completely pointless wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) that did the opposite of what they were supposed to do (i.e. we got more terrorism)
      * public perception was in the gutter before 9/11. Especially internationally, he was the laughing stock of the world, easily on par with Trump.

      On speech, GWB couldn't speak clearly, Trump chooses not to. His speaking patterns are just that: Patterns. If you search on the Internet you will quickly find that a lot of experts, including university professors, have spent time analyzing his unusual style, and generally came to the conclusion that it might appear he's rambling, but there are enough hints in there that it is clear his "ramblings" are very much engineered.

      I'll grant you the other points.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  14. results by Tom · · Score: 1

    It was obvious that e-sports will be short-lived because bots are going to beat us all within a short time. Soon you'll be able to run them on your home machine and nobody will be the wiser. Anti-cheat mechanisms will work for a short time, and then go to the dustbin of history.

    But what I'd find even more interesting is the output of those learning algorithms. If it can amass lifetimes of experience, can it answer the question which heroes are over- or underpowered? All we'd need to check is its picking preferences. Can it figure out if there is one optimum loadout? One optimum skillset? Will it find an optimum strategy, especially once the whole team is bots (who know that the others are bots, or even a network of bots that communicate) ?

    Using such bots not at tournaments but during game development will do miracles for balancing.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:results by Whibla · · Score: 2

      can it answer the question which heroes are over- or underpowered?

      Assumption detected... ;-)

      In a game of rock paper scissors which hand sign is overpowered? It seems to me that it's this balance of power that the game devs are aiming for. Which then leads back to your question ... and, in fairness, your final point.

      It was obvious that e-sports will be short-lived because bots are going to beat us all within a short time

      Only if they're allowed to enter. Otherwise, sanitised computers with only the required software (i.e. the game in question) installed will ensure the competition is limited to the human participants you can see on the gaming stage. Online gaming, on the other hand, is already exactly as you say. The various cheats and hacks that already exist make playing many online "pvp" games an exercise in frustration and futility.

    2. Re:results by Tom · · Score: 1

      rock-paper-scissors is trivial to balance because it has a clear payoff matrix with one dimension.

      But once you have more complexity, can you say for sure that you have the correct weighting between, say, speed, offensive power and armor ? That is exactly what I'm getting at.

      Only if they're allowed to enter. Otherwise, sanitised computers with only the required software (i.e. the game in question) installed will ensure the competition is limited to the human participants you can see on the gaming stage

      For the tournament level that will work. But one level below, it already fails, the same way we don't do drug tests at little league games.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  15. What? by Gussington · · Score: 1

    "Musk is hailing the achievement as the first time artificial intelligence has been able to beat pros in competitive e-sports"
    I've been playing multiplayer games for decades, and cheat bots have always been able to beat humans. There is no way you can compete with something that is programmed to headshot you the millisecond any pixel of your player appears in their field of view (which also happens to be 360 degrees all the time).
    Maybe this claim only applies to DOTA, because for any FPS this has always been the case.

  16. Rent seeking? by bool2 · · Score: 2

    I think the question must always be asked when people call for regulation is can they profit from it? I can't help but wonder if Musk is actually not doing good here but setting in motion the slow train of regulation so that when he's ready with some uber-AI he'll be in the position to get the rules of the game altered to his advantage with bureaucracy, regulation and licensing.

  17. Re:time for a new term by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    It's difficult to define what 'AI' is, because it's difficult to define what 'I' is. The human brain is the most complex thing (that we know of) in the Universe. Only in the last few decades (maybe) have we really started to figure out anything about it, and yet we still know almost nothing.

    And that's the real problem that I have with the term AI. How can we design an artificial version of something we barely understand? It always seems to me like we are putting the cart before the horse. Maybe we do discover AI before we understand I, but how would we even know? What do we compare it to? How do we tell the difference between something that is actually Intelligent vs. something that just mimics Intelligence incredibly well? Maybe more importantly, does it even matter?

    After all, maybe we are just a highly complex, but ultimately deterministic, 'program' that appears intelligent.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  18. AI Is Just Misunderstood by CodeHog · · Score: 1

    From a facebook post about AI "I still wouldn't trust it. It's like cloning. It's something we shouldn't be messing with." and the classic " If you were a computer, and had the ability to, why wouldn't you exterminate the human race? We are hip deep in fucktards".

    --
    Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
  19. LULZ by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    If the AI learned anything it would be how to use racial and sexual slurs in Peruvian whilst smack talking the entire time ultimately quitting the match should any of the other "parameters" upset them...

    A computer learning how to win a computer game doesn't impress me much. Had it learned gamer behavior that would be something to see! :)