Slashdot Mirror
DeepMind AI AlphaStar Wins 10-1 Against 'StarCarft II' Pros (newscientist.com)
In a series of matches streamed on YouTube and Twitch, DeepMind AI AlphaStar defeated two top-ranked professionals 10-1 at real-time strategy game StarCraft II. "This is of course an exciting moment for us," said David Silver at DeepMind in a live stream watched by more than 55,000 people. "For the first time we saw an AI that was able to defeat a professional player." New Scientist reports: DeepMind created five versions of their AI, called AlphaStar, and trained them on footage of human games. The different AIs then played against each other in a league, with the leading AI accumulating the equivalent of 200 years of game experience. With this, AlphaStar beat professional players Dario Wunsch and Grzegorz Komincz -- ranked 44th and 13th in the world respectively. AlphaStar's success came with some caveats: the AI played only on a single map, and using a single kind of player (there are three in the game). The professionals also had to contend with playing different versions of AlphaStar from match to match. While the AlphaStar was playing on a single graphics processing unit, a computer chip found in many gaming computers, it was trained on 16 tensor processing units hosted in the Google cloud -- processing power beyond the realms of many.
Much like the dota bot from last year AlphaStar is effectively cheating as it is aware of the entire map at once, not restricted to the viewport as humans are. These are only really a novelty until they start operating on imperfect knowledge and imperfect inputs as humans are (even if it was arbitrarily limited on reaction speed).
With Deepmind, they are using an interface into SC2, not directly inside the game as a script. The AI is also APM capped. So no, it can't simply out multitask the human.
Lol ?
Except to the computer doing something at one side of the map is the same as doing something on the other side of the map.
So no, it's not the same.
I will be more impressed still with a robot looking at a screen playing on keyboard and mouse.
Still not a fair match unless Deepmind is connected to a robot arm moving and clicking a mouse.
Nothing to see here..
Yes, but which units should you use to counter your enemy? When should you scout? When you see your enemy has building X at time Y and location Z, what is your best response?
You can do a lot with brute forcing, which is the sort of play style you're talking about, but if your AI can't do reasonably well at most of the above components, then it will still be able to be beaten by a pro player.
Computers are good at playing computer games with a strict ruleset. Imagine that.
Playing a multiplayer game with bots used to be seen as an inferior experience to playing with real humans. Now imagine that instead of something like AlphaStar's utility function being set to trying to win, it's set to trying to make the human opponents have the most fun. Of course it'd need some understanding of the mindset of the player; they might not want to always win, or always have close matches, or possibly they're a sore loser. However, this could be inferred somewhat by player behavior (even outside of the match proper, e.g. in menus).
Put that in a game and ship it, and that could be a killer feature. People might prefer to play with a bot that'll guarantee a fun time, over a human that might rage quit or be an unfair match that leads to a one-sided game.
#MakeGamesSinglePlayerAgain
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Nobody notice the typo in the title? Wtf is Starcarft?
I believe any strategy or interesting technique is bound to be some equation at some level. Just we use different names - if it's easy to see the algorithm we call it simple bruteforce math; if we can't grasp the whole algorithm, we call it strategy. At the end it's all math computation. Unless of course if we name intelligence as something outside the grasp of math (things like insight/intuition/faith(?))
Is that the latest racing game from Blizzard?
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
This wasn't covered in the video, but in the DeepMind Blog about the match, they link to a paper describing a custom network architecture specifically designed to do "micro" during a battle, where each individual unit is acting as its own miniature agent. From the paper:
There's no way any human can get their "micro" to the level where they're calculating optimal behavior for individual units on the battlefield.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
So no, it can't simply out multitask the human.
That's the only way it won. It was able to notice when its stalkers were low in health and pull them back at the perfect time. It was able to accurately micro in battles at three or four locations.
The strategies and decision making (continually sending its army up a guarded ramp in a choke point, for example) were poor, but it was able to make up for it by using superior micro.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
a machine is driven by a set of mechanical/logical rules strictly,
No, there's actually a large random factor.
Your brain, likewise, is driven by a set of interconnected neurons with interactions dictated by electrochemical rules. It is not strict. There's a lot of... squishiness about when a neuron fires and how it fires. Likewise, there's a lot of squishiness with how weights in an artificial neural network get updated. That's thanks to the glory of rand().
However, anything that follows any set of rules will always, in the natural world, come to usurp the intent of those rules.
Haha, ok you little rebel.
But a mind creates its own intents
You should ask yourself why you like sex and if you don't think you've been pre-programmed for that, I don't know what to tell you.
Truths are always relative to the observer.
Heresy.
Thanks... i like it https://valentinstag.me/