SC:BW AI Defeats WCG competitor - Page 5

On January 20 2011 04:28 Diminotoor wrote:


My point is the AI is not able to defeat ANYBODY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT VALUE.

On January 20 2011 05:11 Beside_kr wrote:
WCG has no record of a Oriol Vinyals competing. The only thing close is Oriol Prats Navarro a UT99 player from Spain. The website doesn't have players from the WCGC (2000) but also does not list Spain as one of the countries that competed that year.

Did he mean that he'd played in a preliminary of the Spain qualifiers for Spain? Because that's something significantly different.

On January 20 2011 05:17 MamiyaOtaru wrote:

Yeah no crap. The article says as much. It beat someone using Goliaths. People are getting all keyed up about that, like why did he go mass goliath etc. He probably did so as part of testing the AI. Like the people in the project probably asked him to "go goliath this time, to see how the AI responds". It responded well enough to beat him, in that situation (while losing every other game to him).

Saying that it couldn't beat a progamer, or a ICCUP d+ or whatever is setting up, then demolishing a strawman. The article never said it could. The AI progressed to the point where it could take out other AIs, and beat a pretty good human in a specific situation. But if you don't see how that is interesting I'm not sure what to say. Before an AI can beat a human consistently in any/most situations, it has to be able to do it in one. You start somewhere.

This is interesting because it is the best AI (results show that), and it is getting closer to being good. It's interesting that an AI this good (for an AI) still has massive difficulties in beating a good human, but also interesting that it is getting there. It's not some slam at progamers. It won't be a slam at them if/when the AI can beat them. It is an AI, it is not a level playing field. If/when it can ever beat progamers, it won't make what they do less impressive just like no one thought Kasparov was now terrible and worthless after a computer beat him. You reall ydon't need to white knight progamers so hard.

On January 20 2011 05:30 kamikami wrote:
Of course it is interesting but the article writer was doing a dirty job of giving the impression that the AI can beat everyone who play SC except for a few. Although in fact it won't have a chance against a macro D+ on iCCup (I don't think I can beat a high D either). Making the world think that the average skill level of BW gamer is as low as this AI is unacceptable.

On January 20 2011 05:36 Marradron wrote:
Not all too impressed yet. Did you know that mutas can actually fire backwards if you give the commands at accactly the right frames ?

On January 20 2011 05:53 kamikami wrote:
Well MamiyaOtaru you can defend the article as you like but I (and the guys arguing with you before) will just hate it because it gives false impression that SC skill level is low and that's it, you cannot change what people feel while reading it.

Why ? Because the title and the first paragraph give the impression that the human opponent is very high level (WCG competitor, 1st in Spain...), it just doesn't state specifically that it was 10 years ago and nowadays he is no one.

On January 20 2011 05:40 MamiyaOtaru wrote:

Again with the strawman. from the article: "after dozens of test matches, it has finally defeated our human StarCraft expert for the first time
...
“Okay,” he says. “We can beat goliaths. What’s next?”"

The article is simply not making these claims you think you are seeing. It is an article about how the AI beat other AIs. And once, *once* it beat a "good human" (good human being someone who the article points out is retired), in one specific situation. That might change someday, but that's the situation now, and the article lays it out very clearly. You are getting worked up about something the article does not say. You will have to provide quotes if you want to change my mind.

More from the article:
"By the time the submission deadline came around, the Overmind was good enough that he (Oriol, retired) had to play seriously" - It says he had to play seriously, not that he lost. He had to play seriously to beat it, which he, A retired guy no one has heard of, did (except for one time when they wanted to test it against goliaths)

“Dan believes that in a few years there will be agents that can consistently compete against the highest levels of human competition." - this means there isn't such a thing now. He might be wrong about whether such a thing will ever exist, but it is quite clear that he doesn't think it does now, and quite clear for anyone who actually reads and comprehends the article.

What the AI is, is not as dumb as the built in AI. You can't kite its whole worker force around with a single drone. Its build order doesn't break down if a building is missing or taken out or gas is not available. It is a massive leap over the built in AI, and a good first step towards maybe someday being able to compete with good humans. It is (or could be) the groundwork. It is not there now and no one says it is.

Bottom line: it is an article about "how the Berkeley Overmind won the 2010 StarCraft AI competition"

Perfect micro is far less impressive from an AI standpoint than figuring out macro and when to build things. It is a much easier problem to solve, and there's no reason the Overmind couldn't incorporate it once it has figured out when to build what. What the Overmind is doing is far harder (for a machine) than microing some units around.

On January 20 2011 05:53 kamikami wrote:
Well MamiyaOtaru you can defend the article as you like but I (and the guys arguing with you before) will just hate it because it gives false impression that SC skill level is low and that's it, you cannot change what people feel while reading it.

Why ? Because the title and the first paragraph give the impression that the human opponent is very high level (WCG competitor, 1st in Spain...), it just doesn't state specifically that it was 10 years ago and nowadays he is no one.

On January 20 2011 04:43 Diminotoor wrote:
Kid, I've been dealing with dangers my entire life the likes of which you can't even fathom. You claim I'm "not even worth arguing" which doesn't make any sense, yet you can't stop responding to me. Neither you, nor anyone else here who lacks a spine or intelligence has a chance of even getting a real rise out of me much less "chasing me away". Get over yourself.

On January 20 2011 06:15 formthehead wrote:


So the whole idea is invalidated because someone might not read the whole article?

The entire "argument" in the thread should've gone like this:

"I don't think the thread title is accurate." "yep it isn't." "okay."

And yes they did say that he's no longer competitive at the game.

Yes. Right from the very start you've been saying the intro is bad. Not that the article is crap.

So you want me to read more thoroughly into your idea that people don't need to read?

On January 20 2011 02:24 popzags wrote:

Proof to July's words?