EPTFlash on DeepMind: "I think I can win" - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DonDomingo
504 Posts
| ||
|
Green_25
Great Britain696 Posts
Oh wait, Innovation. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On March 11 2016 04:01 ZAiNs wrote: How would it be weird to limit the mechanics? The goal is to be 'smarter' than a human, without limiting mechanics it wouldn't really prove anything or be an accomplishment. I imagine they would want to even limit the mechanics so that they're slightly below the absolute best players mechanically. Attention is a resource in SC2 and I think it'll be hard to give the AI imperfect mini-map awareness or imperfect mouse-accuracy without creating too complicated of a model, but things like actual keypresses a second and cursor speed will be easy to limit. Because mechanics are such a big part about starcraft. By far the biggest. So how do we really make sure that the Ai didn't win through mechanics? It's impossible (imo) to build it exactly at the sweet spot. Attention is probably even a bigger deal than apm itself. The only real way to make sure "it is fair" is to make the AI use the same hardware, mouse, keyboard and monitor. If you don't do that then the result is questionable at best as far as i can tell edit: and even then you will get a device which is superior to human flesh, so i dunno.. AI vs AI would be interesting to watch though, i would imagine tactis and strategy would be a way bigger deal there because the mechanical part could be made exactly even | ||
|
CxWiLL
China830 Posts
After watching the Go games, the AlphaGo's play style feels like something next level to me. In the two games played, the bot fell behind in the early-mid game pretty badly, but it just win by out-calculate Lee Sedol in small skirmishes. By the end, the bots won. Feel like playing some one with perfect blink stalker micro. No matter how badly his status is, as soon as his blink is ready, you start to trade badly here and there. Soon, you find yourself in an awkward position that you cannot walk out of your base and you cannot expand either. If the Deepmind team goes full try-hard mode, some micro bot can out-micro human players pretty hard, which is nothing challenging to them. Personally, I would love to see a bot that plays like a human, fetching information from the game through the output image instead of the computer memory. and this might make the game fair. | ||
|
HellHound
Bulgaria5962 Posts
On March 11 2016 01:18 Charoisaur wrote: BTW a bot that plays starcraft perfectly already exists. It's called INnoVation. So we can beat deepmind with nydus play. Good plan. | ||
|
Cuce
Turkey1127 Posts
On March 11 2016 03:09 disciple wrote: This match would have number of interesting implications chief among witch are BO decisions. If AI is strictly superior microing units theres no reason not to assume that it will try taking advantage of this and go for 1 base all-ins most of the time in order to force micro intensive early games. It would be cool if the AI has some doubt about his opponents skill and actually needs to confirm its superiority in micro in order to feel confident in winning and going for all ins. Humans already do that as we all know from Bisu being annoying as much as possible with his scouting probe. Now imagine AI controlling this, it will never die by mistake. I think AI should go for a late game instead. it has not only perfect micro but also perfect mechanics (maybe not intuitive and predictive macro but still) perfect multitasking, perfect minimap. more stuff to do would mean more adventages AI will get. Yes more tiem it gives to the player means player will have more options and tricks to pull of a win, but perfect micro can shutdown quite a alot of stuff. | ||
|
BjoernK
194 Posts
| ||
|
chiasmus
United States134 Posts
What I love about Starcraft, and what makes it my favorite esport, is that it's a *physical sport* in addition to a strategy game. If you take away the need to physically manipulate the mouse and keyboard, it isn't really the same game. That's why it's different from chess, or go, or poker, or hearthstone. The AI-vs-AI competitions are still kinda cool though. | ||
|
bITt.mAN
Switzerland3693 Posts
1. They should do it with BWAPI because SC2 is lame like that (it doesn't have an API to interface code<->game). 2. There's been TONS of theorycrafting on RTS AI and their limitations. link Two big differences between turn-based games and RTS, are real-time computational optimizations (which figure far-less in turn-based AI), and, as Flash rightly states, finite information. | ||
|
Grizvok
United States711 Posts
On March 11 2016 05:07 bITt.mAN wrote: Lol. 1. They should do it with BWAPI because SC2 is lame like that (it doesn't have an API to interface code<->game). 2. There's been TONS of theorycrafting on RTS AI and their limitations. link Two big differences between turn-based games and RTS, are real-time computational optimizations (which figure far-less in turn-based AI), and, as Flash rightly states, finite information. Their limitations NOW you mean. A sophisticated AI built to play SC2 (when it is ready) will destroy any player easily. Regardless you don't factor in the crazy levels of micro you can pull off with infinite APM. Dropping three areas at once while still macro'ing perfectly WHILE stutter step micro'ing each drop is something a human will never be able to do yet it is feasible that a computer could potentially do those things. | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On March 11 2016 05:32 Grizvok wrote: Their limitations NOW you mean. A sophisticated AI built to play SC2 (when it is ready) will destroy any player easily. Regardless you don't factor in the crazy levels of micro you can pull off with infinite APM. Dropping three areas at once while still macro'ing perfectly WHILE stutter step micro'ing each drop is something a human will never be able to do yet it is feasible that a computer could potentially do those things. I feel like you can solve that by actually having things be possible, like the computer can't be looking at 3 screens at once | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On March 11 2016 04:18 The_Red_Viper wrote: Because mechanics are such a big part about starcraft. By far the biggest. So how do we really make sure that the Ai didn't win through mechanics? It's impossible (imo) to build it exactly at the sweet spot. Attention is probably even a bigger deal than apm itself. The only real way to make sure "it is fair" is to make the AI use the same hardware, mouse, keyboard and monitor. If you don't do that then the result is questionable at best as far as i can tell edit: and even then you will get a device which is superior to human flesh, so i dunno.. AI vs AI would be interesting to watch though, i would imagine tactis and strategy would be a way bigger deal there because the mechanical part could be made exactly even I don't get what you mean by making the AI use a mouse, keyboard and monitor. The AI would still be able to move them with precision and speed far beyond a human. Speed and precision are big parts of SC2 but at the top-level they aren't what makes players usually win. If an AI that is restricted to the mechanics of an average progamer beats a top-level progamer then wouldn't be its mechanics that made it win. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On March 11 2016 05:53 ZAiNs wrote: I don't get what you mean by making the AI use a mouse, keyboard and monitor. The AI would still be able to move them with precision and speed far beyond a human. Speed and precision are big parts of SC2 but at the top-level they aren't what makes players usually win. If an AI that is restricted to the mechanics of an average progamer beats a top-level progamer then wouldn't be its mechanics that made it win. I mean that the AI would have the same restrictions mechanically as the tpyical human. We only can interact with the game with the help of the hardware, mouse, keyboard and monitor. The AI probably wouldn't do that, it could be everywhere at once (you as human cannot because the monitor simply doesn't make it possible, just as the mouse doen't make it possible to control different groups at once, etc) If the human had another device (control the game directly with the brain or something similar) this maybe wouldn't be a limiting factor anymore. But yeah if you can somehow make it so that the AI doesn't have better mechanics/multitasking/attention than the average pro player, then maybe this would be interesting (even though i am not so sure about that either, even though starcraft might have more possible "board states", i would imagine that most of them are completely irrelevant and that the actual depth of the game isn't anywhere near GO for example) It being a game with limited information is the only interesting aspect about all of this i can see tbh | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On March 11 2016 05:59 The_Red_Viper wrote: I mean that the AI would have the same restrictions mechanically as the tpyical human. We only can interact with the game with the help of the hardware, mouse, keyboard and monitor. The AI probably wouldn't do that, it could be everywhere at once (you as human cannot because the monitor simply doesn't make it possible, just as the mouse doen't make it possible to control different groups at once, etc) If the human had another device (control the game directly with the brain or something similar) this maybe wouldn't be a limiting factor anymore. But yeah if you can somehow make it so that the AI doesn't have better mechanics/multitasking/attention than the average pro player, then maybe this would be interesting (even though i am not so sure about that either, even though starcraft might have more possible "board states", i would imagine that most of them are completely irrelevant and that the actual depth of the game isn't anywhere near GO for example) It being a game with limited information is the only interesting aspect about all of this i can see tbh The number of game states in StarCraft is several magnitudes higher than Go, even if you somehow got rid of the irrelevant ones like obviously stupid openings (which really is something the AI would have to work out for itself), there would still be several magnitudes more game states for StarCraft. Regardless of what you think about the strategic depth of the game, the sheer number of game states makes things far more complicated for AI to figure out. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On March 11 2016 06:39 ZAiNs wrote: The number of game states in StarCraft is several magnitudes higher than Go, even if you somehow got rid of the irrelevant ones like obviously stupid openings (which really is something the AI would have to work out for itself), there would still be several magnitudes more game states for StarCraft. Regardless of what you think about the strategic depth of the game, the sheer number of game states makes things far more complicated for AI to figure out. Just to be clear, let's say you place building X at place Y or Z, that are two different "board states" right? Even if it means that placing your first supply depot in the enemy base probably isn't all that smart? I get that it isn't "intuitive" for the AI like for a human being, but there surely are tons and tons of these things in sc2. Even something like: I move my army (or even single marine) a few tiles on the left, it probably won't be the biggest deal but it surely is considered a different "board state" ? If we want to play 100% perfectly these things have to be considered, but overall it probably doesn't matter at all i would imagine. I don't think the same is true for GO? (i have no idea about GO though) My statement was probably just simply this: A high lvl GO players surely possesses more tactical/strategical understanding than a starcraft professional, you don't have to be highly intelligent to play starcraft at a high lvl, the same probably isn't true for GO/chess. i think? (i can see why this isn't all that relevant to the main topic though ^^) | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
| ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On March 11 2016 06:47 The_Red_Viper wrote: Just to be clear, let's say you place building X at place Y or Z, that are two different "board states" right? Even if it means that placing your first supply depot in the enemy base probably isn't all that smart? I get that it isn't "intuitive" for the AI like for a human being, but there surely are tons and tons of these things in sc2. Even something like: I move my army (or even single marine) a few tiles on the left, it probably won't be the biggest deal but it surely is considered a different "board state" ? If we want to play 100% perfectly these things have to be considered, but overall it probably doesn't matter at all i would imagine. I don't think the same is true for GO? (i have no idea about GO though) My statement was probably just simply this: A high lvl GO players surely possesses more tactical/strategical understanding than a starcraft professional, you don't have to be highly intelligent to play starcraft at a high lvl, the same probably isn't true for GO/chess. i think? (i can see why this isn't all that relevant to the main topic though ^^) Well your first depot position is a bad example because it's actually very important (and even if it wasn't the AI would probably still figure out the best place for it). I get what you're saying though, like if you place your 4th Gateway one space to the left it's a trivially-different game-state which I'm sure feature in Go seeing as the board has 2 lines of symmetry. Even if you remove stuff like that and try to dumb the model down as much as possible you're still going to have a ridiculous number of game states. StarCraft BW and 2 both even have some random factors (more so in BW), even though they are minor they also would increase the complexity of things. How much 'human' strategy is needed is up for debate, but for an AI with mechanical limits conquering StarCraft will be far far more difficult than Go. | ||
|
Vlad_Slymor
France26 Posts
That's the whole point of machine learning: cap it at 100 APM, and it will still find the single most optimal use for every of those actions. Add a 0-reaction time and a perfect decision making, and i can't even imagine how Flash is supposed to win. Actually, an interesting challenge would probably be to find the minimum APM it needs to win... | ||
disciple
9071 Posts
| ||
|
WinterViewbot420
345 Posts
| ||
| ||
