Can someone please watch this video? If you think you've seen it before, then you probably haven't. This is much better and harder to do than what you see in pro games. JD has done this before but nobody bothered to watch the video I posted because they all think they've seen it before.

Chimpalimp

United States1135 Posts

January 20 2011 00:36 GMT

#122

It would have been much simpler for it to use hydralisk than mutalisk. Most humans can't beat a hydra break, why would an AI be able to? Besides I think the AI would be totally screwed by an AI or player told only to build photon cannons and dragoons...

xxpack09

United States2160 Posts

January 20 2011 00:38 GMT

#123

On January 20 2011 09:36 Chimpalimp wrote:
It would have been much simpler for it to use hydralisk than mutalisk. Most humans can't beat a hydra break, why would an AI be able to? Besides I think the AI would be totally screwed by an AI or player told only to build photon cannons and dragoons...

The AI executes the same general gameplan vs all races

Sanguinarius

United States3427 Posts

January 20 2011 00:39 GMT

#124

At some point (sooner as opposed to later) the AI will be able to consistently beat humans. Then we will have to worry if we are playing a real human in a tourney.

Bajadulce

United States322 Posts

January 20 2011 00:57 GMT

#125

Really fun to watch! Very impressive. Gjob to the organizer Ben Weber and all the contestants/universities that participated in the AI competition. I see that krasi0 took runner up!

Amazing how much progress has took place since kovarex and lowerlogic's humble beginnings.

Look forward to seeing how this continues to evolve!

Khul Sadukar

Australia1735 Posts

January 20 2011 00:58 GMT

#126

Until it beats Flash not really impressed. Is the AI restricted to actions only on the current view? If not than it should have no problem out multi-tasking anyone.

MamiyaOtaru

United States1687 Posts

January 20 2011 01:05 GMT

#127

On January 20 2011 09:09 zobz wrote:
The article is definitely flawed. For people reading it who have little or no prior knowledge of starcraft it would most probably lead them to misunderstand the game.
...
The article does make it clear however just what is involved in those accomplishments, that these methods of AI programming are not what most people would expect

It's not an article about Starcraft, it's about an AI. It's written by people who are making an AI, not Starcraft gurus. It is about an AI that beat a bunch of other AIs, and hey, one time it beat some human dude. Beating other AIs is, at this point, a lot easier than beating good human players, which is quite clear from the article. They have to start somewhere. They may be a little optimistic in extrapolating future performance, but calling it dishonest or reprehensible is.. hyperbolic, inaccurate and mean.

butchji

Germany1531 Posts

January 20 2011 01:10 GMT

#128

The computer can do a lot of stuff a human could never do. Like focusing a weakened mutalisk of JaeDong's 11 Ball Muta group, right?

Gak2

Canada418 Posts

January 20 2011 01:21 GMT

#129

Big whoop, the article uses somewhat ambiguous words to capture your attention. Read the newspaper sometimes.

And for those of you who claim you are not impressed with this... REALLY? The idea that a bunch of metal and electricity (ok... nonmetals too) can carry out THIS level of play in our most beloved game is not interesting to you at all? Wow.. you're harder to impress than GSP

GolemMadness

Canada11044 Posts

January 20 2011 01:27 GMT

#130

Chess computers have been stronger than people for a while now.

evanthebouncy!

United States12796 Posts

January 20 2011 01:31 GMT

#131

The hard part is usually not "How to do task A" but "When to do Task A" and "What to do in a situation".

Take this example: He has 5 goliath and turret guarding some scvs, is it worth killing the goliath, shoot some scv then run? Or should we kill turret first? Or just kill scv and run? These are the questions the bot needs to address, and the article covers it a little.

So again, coming up with adaptive strategy is much harder than coming up with some micro-trick that anyone could implement. I get the feeling we're focusing too much on "Wow yeah def computer OP it has 100000 clicks!!" But think about it, it is still difficult to decide "Oh yeah so u have 10000 clicks, how are u going to use them?"

So it has a long way to go but we can be hopeful!

FlaShFTW

United States10246 Posts

January 20 2011 01:40 GMT

#132

On January 20 2011 02:24 popzags wrote:

Show nested quote +

Proof to July's words?

I'd like to see it's Muta micro. And how it copes with unusual strategies.

Show nested quote +

'Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine' was one, though probably not the only one:

The rematch: IBM Watson vs Brad Rutter vs Ken Jennings.

Finally??? i think the computer will meet it's match vs FlaSh.

FlaShFTW

United States10246 Posts

January 20 2011 01:44 GMT

#133

On January 20 2011 09:16 Wonders wrote:

Show nested quote +

*sees jaw fall off*

*blink blink*

WAT??? 30k apm??? seriously, what are people making these days... i feel like this will be the end of starcraft if we have that sort of computer out there...

Maenander

Germany4926 Posts

January 20 2011 01:54 GMT

#134

On January 20 2011 06:11 djsherman wrote:
The bot still has a lot of issues, but it's definitely pushing on research in this domain. If you have an idea of what the bot is going for, then it's usually not to challenging to overrun the bot with a timing attack. I played against the system, but had a pretty idea of what the bot would do beforehand: http://eis-blog.ucsc.edu/2010/11/man-vs-bot/

Unfortunately there is not yet an easy to set up matches for playing against BWAPI. This is something being explored for the next competition.

these matches looked like fun, but the bots still have severe weaknesses a human can recognize after a few games

AngryJackB

Congo83 Posts

January 20 2011 01:54 GMT

#135

Man i can't see enough of this. Its really fun to watch. I think watching two computers duke it out is better then watching it play a human.

That muta micro. I hope these ai's get even better. Image having a practice partner that could play every race, and got better with time, and you could play him 24/7.

Lightwip

United States5497 Posts

January 20 2011 01:56 GMT

#136

Impressive that it can execute a rush build, yet it seems like easy pickings for anyone capable of seeing one of the many flaws in its design.

Turgid

United States1623 Posts

January 20 2011 02:24 GMT

#137

On January 20 2011 09:16 Wonders wrote:

Show nested quote +

This is badass. When did JD do it? I want to see a cross section of an observer computer, a FP VOD, and a video of his hands during the incident, cause damn.

bluetrolls

United States139 Posts

January 20 2011 03:49 GMT

#138

Cute, but cheating. When the AI will be using a keyboard and mouse for input, then it's time to run for the hills.

WniO

United States2706 Posts

January 20 2011 04:11 GMT

#139

damn thanks for posting that chess trailer! im going to get back into chess. scary how the comps > grandmasters. will NEVER happen in starcraft though.

Xtermz

United States2 Posts

January 20 2011 05:03 GMT

#140

Hi,

I just want to briefly mention a couple of things. The title is accurate, but for those seeking further clarification:

-I competed in the WCG 2001, and stopped playing a long time ago. Obviously, in terms of skill, I'm fairly average right now. However, my knowledge of the game is still rock solid, and given that I'm also a PhD student in AI, the two factors helped the Overmind tremendously.

-The AI system is far from beating anyone decent. I lost a single game where we were trying several conditions, how the mutalisks were acting, etc. In no way I was playing to win, but to "teach" the Overmind, so to speak. So the title may be a bit misleading in this regard, but it was meant to attract attention which it certainly did.

For those wondering what I'm doing now, I'm playing WoW (yes, I know!) on my (scarce) free time, and doing decently so (which helped me not loosing too much APM's or gaming "skills").

Oriol

P.S. I'm not the author of neither the article nor this post