|
On March 14 2016 14:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 14:00 EngrishTeacher wrote:On March 14 2016 13:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 14 2016 13:15 Big J wrote:On March 14 2016 13:06 EngrishTeacher wrote:On March 13 2016 14:06 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 13 2016 14:03 writer22816 wrote:On March 13 2016 13:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 13 2016 03:19 Brutaxilos wrote:
As a programmer, I'm actually quite skeptical that Boxer would be able to beat an intelligent AI given that a team of scientists are given enough time to develop one. It's inevitable. If the constraints are the same, as in the computer must use a keyboard and mouse and can only view one part of the screen at a time I don't think an AI could ever win against a top player, at least in my lifetime. And if we were able to control the game using the human brain, it would be another no contest, we'd have near perfect micro and macro too. Only if the computer is unrestrained by a keyboard and mouse and the human is restrained by those factors will the human lose. Humans are far too innovative. If you simply deny scouting and the AI will either guess what you are doing or go for some standard safe play, and either of those things could be exploit. What the hell does it even mean for a computer to use a keyboard and a mouse? A computer doesn't have two hands and 10 fingers. The computer with the AI should be playing the game using another computer using a keyboard, mouse and monitor because that is how Starcraft is played. I'm didn't create Starcraft so don't blame that that is how the game is played. Having those limitations is what makes Starcraft difficult. If the AI can at once be blink microing Stalkers while warping in units at pylon off screen (off field of vision) then that is cheating.The AI in Chess or Go can do nothing a human cannot, the AI is literally outthinking the players. So even if the APM is limited, the field of vision must be limited also. The AI has no chance given equal constraints. If we are talking about no keyboard, mouse or monitor for the computer, then it should be the same for humans. I can imagine perfect forcefields, if the game responded to my mind, I'd never miss a forcefield. And my macro would be on point too, just subtle sounds would be all I would need to know to send a worker to a mineral line. I know this is a few pages further back in the thread, but I really would like to address the artificial physical limitations people are trying to impose. I'm pretty certain that no matter HOW MUCH WE ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT the AI in terms of physical playing limitations, it's still going to VASTLY outperform a human in terms of raw mechanics. SC is just much too mechanics-heavy of a game to properly design and implement an AI that "wins by out-thinking instead of out-muscling." As a specific example, sure you can limit the AI to only perform actions within view, so that it cannot micro perfectly while also macro'ing "off screen". However this immediately becomes a moot point, because good multitasking is highly prized among SC players, and since true multitasking is impossible, it's no more than screen flipping using location and army hotkeys and trying to maximize the benefits of one's limited attention and actions. Considering inherent human limitations such as reaction time and muscle activation time, human multitasking is FAR from perfect. So the AI can be made to "multitask" as well, except we'll give it active snapshots and predicative algorithms as to what is and what would be happening on screen, so every millisecond the AI is flipping back and forth between the 2 important micro/macro locations, and performing actions as perfectly as your silly "limitations" allow. Of course in the end people were getting ridiculous with ideas of extreme limitations, going as far as saying computers should be limited to playing with a keyboard and a mouse, thus almost completely removing any mechanical advantages the AI would have by nature, because "that's how SC is meant to be played." If such bizarre limitations were to be put in place so the "AI plays just like a human", then I guess AlphaGO is a cheater by definition, and its wins are meaningless as well right? Considering the human brain can only access limited parts of its limited memory (by comparison) at any given time, AlphaGO should have been made to only access 2KB of its 56MB (just random numbers here for illustration) database while playing right? What makes these matches interesting is seeing how the imbalances (memory size vs. overall awareness, etc.) between AI and humans play out. If you attempt to artificially handicap the AI to exactly resemble a human, then what's the point of competing in the first place? TL;DR: SC is just too mechanics heavy to allow for meaningful AI development. Coupled with the fact that it's a game of imperfect information with a significant RNG aspect to it, it's just not a good candidate game for AI exploration. I couldn't agree more. I for my part I would find it beautiful if an AI could show us that the game is played completely wrong and possibly broken beyond repair. It shows the possibilities for the game, the gaming industry and e-sports and should be embraced rather than feared. It has no impact whatsoever on the human achievments in this game so far. The point of the calls for limiting the "mechanics" of the AI is to show that is actually won because of tactics/strategy. That's pretty much the point of these AI programms in the first place. If you simply have it with no limitations it could win purely on mechanics alone, it would be almost trivial. You could also argue that starcraft (or any game which is played in real time) might be simply a bad choice for this kind of thing. That's... almost exactly what I said, I even had a TL; DR at the bottom but I guess it was still too long to read. Still TL; DR: it would be nearly impossible to implement the "right" amount of limitations, and thus SC, or any other RTS game, are probably terrible candidates for AI development. I read Big J's reply the wrong way i fear. I got confused why he would agree with you and at the same time say the AI would show us how the game is meant to be played (strategically) when it probably would just win by pure mechanics (against humans) AI vs AI would be more interesting i guess. So yeah my bad for already making posts early in the morning here -.- TLDR: I partially agree with you, real time games (and sc2) are probably a bad place for AI development, or to be more precise a bad area to show that the AI beats humans because of superior 'understanding' of the game. (which is obviously only one step in the direction of a real 'intelligent AI')
Closer to wow it is meant to be played from a game theoretical point of view, since there is no rule in the game restricting you mechanically. All those restrictions are outside of the ruleset of the game and therefore uninteresting if you want to solve the game. (which you can always do as game theory tells us, i.e. there is always a set of pure or mixed strategies that you should never deviate from.)
|
On March 14 2016 14:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 14:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 14 2016 14:00 EngrishTeacher wrote:On March 14 2016 13:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 14 2016 13:15 Big J wrote:On March 14 2016 13:06 EngrishTeacher wrote:On March 13 2016 14:06 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 13 2016 14:03 writer22816 wrote:On March 13 2016 13:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 13 2016 03:19 Brutaxilos wrote:
As a programmer, I'm actually quite skeptical that Boxer would be able to beat an intelligent AI given that a team of scientists are given enough time to develop one. It's inevitable. If the constraints are the same, as in the computer must use a keyboard and mouse and can only view one part of the screen at a time I don't think an AI could ever win against a top player, at least in my lifetime. And if we were able to control the game using the human brain, it would be another no contest, we'd have near perfect micro and macro too. Only if the computer is unrestrained by a keyboard and mouse and the human is restrained by those factors will the human lose. Humans are far too innovative. If you simply deny scouting and the AI will either guess what you are doing or go for some standard safe play, and either of those things could be exploit. What the hell does it even mean for a computer to use a keyboard and a mouse? A computer doesn't have two hands and 10 fingers. The computer with the AI should be playing the game using another computer using a keyboard, mouse and monitor because that is how Starcraft is played. I'm didn't create Starcraft so don't blame that that is how the game is played. Having those limitations is what makes Starcraft difficult. If the AI can at once be blink microing Stalkers while warping in units at pylon off screen (off field of vision) then that is cheating.The AI in Chess or Go can do nothing a human cannot, the AI is literally outthinking the players. So even if the APM is limited, the field of vision must be limited also. The AI has no chance given equal constraints. If we are talking about no keyboard, mouse or monitor for the computer, then it should be the same for humans. I can imagine perfect forcefields, if the game responded to my mind, I'd never miss a forcefield. And my macro would be on point too, just subtle sounds would be all I would need to know to send a worker to a mineral line. I know this is a few pages further back in the thread, but I really would like to address the artificial physical limitations people are trying to impose. I'm pretty certain that no matter HOW MUCH WE ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT the AI in terms of physical playing limitations, it's still going to VASTLY outperform a human in terms of raw mechanics. SC is just much too mechanics-heavy of a game to properly design and implement an AI that "wins by out-thinking instead of out-muscling." As a specific example, sure you can limit the AI to only perform actions within view, so that it cannot micro perfectly while also macro'ing "off screen". However this immediately becomes a moot point, because good multitasking is highly prized among SC players, and since true multitasking is impossible, it's no more than screen flipping using location and army hotkeys and trying to maximize the benefits of one's limited attention and actions. Considering inherent human limitations such as reaction time and muscle activation time, human multitasking is FAR from perfect. So the AI can be made to "multitask" as well, except we'll give it active snapshots and predicative algorithms as to what is and what would be happening on screen, so every millisecond the AI is flipping back and forth between the 2 important micro/macro locations, and performing actions as perfectly as your silly "limitations" allow. Of course in the end people were getting ridiculous with ideas of extreme limitations, going as far as saying computers should be limited to playing with a keyboard and a mouse, thus almost completely removing any mechanical advantages the AI would have by nature, because "that's how SC is meant to be played." If such bizarre limitations were to be put in place so the "AI plays just like a human", then I guess AlphaGO is a cheater by definition, and its wins are meaningless as well right? Considering the human brain can only access limited parts of its limited memory (by comparison) at any given time, AlphaGO should have been made to only access 2KB of its 56MB (just random numbers here for illustration) database while playing right? What makes these matches interesting is seeing how the imbalances (memory size vs. overall awareness, etc.) between AI and humans play out. If you attempt to artificially handicap the AI to exactly resemble a human, then what's the point of competing in the first place? TL;DR: SC is just too mechanics heavy to allow for meaningful AI development. Coupled with the fact that it's a game of imperfect information with a significant RNG aspect to it, it's just not a good candidate game for AI exploration. I couldn't agree more. I for my part I would find it beautiful if an AI could show us that the game is played completely wrong and possibly broken beyond repair. It shows the possibilities for the game, the gaming industry and e-sports and should be embraced rather than feared. It has no impact whatsoever on the human achievments in this game so far. The point of the calls for limiting the "mechanics" of the AI is to show that is actually won because of tactics/strategy. That's pretty much the point of these AI programms in the first place. If you simply have it with no limitations it could win purely on mechanics alone, it would be almost trivial. You could also argue that starcraft (or any game which is played in real time) might be simply a bad choice for this kind of thing. That's... almost exactly what I said, I even had a TL; DR at the bottom but I guess it was still too long to read. Still TL; DR: it would be nearly impossible to implement the "right" amount of limitations, and thus SC, or any other RTS game, are probably terrible candidates for AI development. I read Big J's reply the wrong way i fear. I got confused why he would agree with you and at the same time say the AI would show us how the game is meant to be played (strategically) when it probably would just win by pure mechanics (against humans) AI vs AI would be more interesting i guess. So yeah my bad for already making posts early in the morning here -.- TLDR: I partially agree with you, real time games (and sc2) are probably a bad place for AI development, or to be more precise a bad area to show that the AI beats humans because of superior 'understanding' of the game. (which is obviously only one step in the direction of a real 'intelligent AI') Closer to wow it is meant to be played from a game theoretical point of view, since there is no rule in the game restricting you mechanically. All those restrictions are outside of the ruleset of the game and therefore uninteresting if you want to solve the game. (which you can always do as game theory tells us, i.e. there is always a set of pure or mixed strategies that you should never deviate from.)
Yeah i got that after reading everything again, which is why i said AI vs AI might be the way to go then.
It's just that games are made for humans, which is why "solving" real time games is imo different in a sense.
For board games it made no difference. (edit: even though you could say that even for board game there is the difference of pure calculation power between humans and an AI, which is comparable i guess)
|
what they say is true. However, the onyl way i could see it being false is if the AI is like the Cheater AI and doesn't have to fight through the fog of war. Mindgames make so much of what sc2 is.
it'd be intersting to see how efficient the AI is versus a player though..they could perfectly micro each individual unit (potentially)
|
in a very distant future we may assist to bot vs bot only on a great level of play, this is somehow disgusting...
|
Rofl @humans and their pride.
Why does some many people think humans have some kind of magic that can't be replicated by computers?
Is it because people are religious and think we have some kind of "soul" or something along those lines that makes us unique?
We are just advanced biological machines as a result of evolution.
We will of course sooner or later develop AI and computers that outshines us in every single way. It's just a matter of time. What argument is there that this won't happen?
It's just a matter of science and enough time.
Science fighting!
|
Denmark145 Posts
Well of course the AI will be able to beat human starcraft players, regardless of it being apm capped or not, as long as they put enough effort into making it. However it would be boring if players didn't take on the challenge of beating it, i myself would love to experience playing against it, we might learn something!
Also it's kind of funny how everyone is viewing the AI winning as humans "losing" I think it would be a great achievement for humanity to make an AI that can learn such a complex task 
|
On March 14 2016 19:59 Liquid`Bunny wrote:Well of course the AI will be able to beat human starcraft players, regardless of it being apm capped or not, as long as they put enough effort into making it. However it would be boring if players didn't take on the challenge of beating it, i myself would love to experience playing against it, we might learn something! Also it's kind of funny how everyone is viewing the AI winning as humans "losing" I think it would be a great achievement for humanity to make an AI that can learn such a complex task
As long as they create some laws restricting AI from taking over the world~~
|
Definitely a lot of good points here about the nature of SC and physical limitations (Nony sums it up pretty much).
Yet I think people are arguing out of perspective, somewhat. Even if Google's AI can beat a human pro by next year it won't mean that the age of AI is nigh. It will merely be a showcase that AI development is headed the right way when it comes to tackling the problems of innovation/creativity (even then that aspect is heavily micro managed by human intelligence).
There are way many more problems in making AIs competitive with humans than simply just the ability to innovate. The human brain runs on something like 20 Watts and if you take into consideration all the tasks that it's always doing (regardless of what the conscious focus is); well, then having a computer with 100+ dedicated support human intelligences while also using the energy cost of a server farm (with almost all its computing power focused on a single purpose) is all of a sudden very pathetic in comparison to what the human brain is accomplishing.
|
On March 14 2016 20:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 19:59 Liquid`Bunny wrote:Well of course the AI will be able to beat human starcraft players, regardless of it being apm capped or not, as long as they put enough effort into making it. However it would be boring if players didn't take on the challenge of beating it, i myself would love to experience playing against it, we might learn something! Also it's kind of funny how everyone is viewing the AI winning as humans "losing" I think it would be a great achievement for humanity to make an AI that can learn such a complex task As long as they create some laws restricting AI from taking over the world~~
Definitely important. If it weren't for the law I would've taken over the world a long time ago.
|
On March 14 2016 20:08 BeyondCtrL wrote:
Definitely a lot of good points here about the nature of SC and physical limitations (Nony sums it up pretty much).
Yet I think people are arguing out of perspective, somewhat. Even if Google's AI can beat a human pro by next year it won't mean that the age of AI is nigh. It will merely be a showcase that AI development is headed the right way when it comes to tackling the problems of innovation/creativity (even then that aspect is heavily micro managed by human intelligence).
There are way many more problems in making AIs competitive with humans than simply just the ability to innovate. The human brain runs on something like 20 Watts and if you take into consideration all the tasks that it's always doing (regardless of what the conscious focus is); well, then having a computer with 100+ dedicated support human intelligences while also using the energy cost of a server farm (with almost all its computing power focused on a single purpose) is all of a sudden very pathetic in comparison to what the human brain is accomplishing.
Keep in mind, "deep learning" is around for how long? 10 years only? Computer power is still developing fast.
Give it another 100 years... or maybe 500... who knows...
We're seeing the beginning of something beautiful right now.
|
Denmark145 Posts
On March 14 2016 20:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 19:59 Liquid`Bunny wrote:Well of course the AI will be able to beat human starcraft players, regardless of it being apm capped or not, as long as they put enough effort into making it. However it would be boring if players didn't take on the challenge of beating it, i myself would love to experience playing against it, we might learn something! Also it's kind of funny how everyone is viewing the AI winning as humans "losing" I think it would be a great achievement for humanity to make an AI that can learn such a complex task As long as they create some laws restricting AI from taking over the world~~
When we create a program that can make a better program on it's own, that's when the trouble starts.
|
On March 14 2016 20:44 beg wrote:
Keep in mind, "deep learning" is around for how long? 10 years only? Computer power is still developing fast.
Give it another 100 years... or maybe 500... who knows...
We're seeing the beginning of something beautiful right now.
Not sure that you understood my point.
|
On March 14 2016 20:51 Liquid`Bunny wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 20:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On March 14 2016 19:59 Liquid`Bunny wrote:Well of course the AI will be able to beat human starcraft players, regardless of it being apm capped or not, as long as they put enough effort into making it. However it would be boring if players didn't take on the challenge of beating it, i myself would love to experience playing against it, we might learn something! Also it's kind of funny how everyone is viewing the AI winning as humans "losing" I think it would be a great achievement for humanity to make an AI that can learn such a complex task As long as they create some laws restricting AI from taking over the world~~ When we create a program that can make a better program on it's own, that's when the trouble starts.
AlphaGo does that already.
|
Dakota_Fanning
Hungary2366 Posts
A well written AI will/would be able to beat any human player with half the human's APM (that "half" ratio is not written in stone).
As many wrote before, the AI would use its allowed APM to do just the actions that are needed, no spam, no misclick, no selection to check unit's health or energy. An AI doesn't need to scroll/click on a hatchery to see when next larva inject is required etc. An AI would never miss any drop "flying in" on the minimap, an AI would react to a drop in the same millisecond it becomes visible (e.g. that comes into the range of any unit).
As an extreme example, the AI could mimic the exact game engine (but of course using only the "visible/public" part of the scene) to calculate any battle, even before it happens (different actions / micro take into account as variations to calculate different outcomes).
It's just a matter of how many hours and energy is put into it, and what computational power is at the AI's disposal, it's absolutely not a question whether it could beat pro players.
|
I cannot see how all this micro/apm cap discussions are relevant if an ai cannot survive 6 minutes. Assuming it is not reading any game input data and driven by simple scouting fog of war that is same for humans, ai would still employ tactics that is limited to its scouting/efficiency input (that is, lets say with rax scout, seeing protoss player with 2 gas n single pylon, machine cant check every corner of the map). It can take every possible precaution in the book against cheese but every now and then you face a player like Has (or dare i name it sOs) that cannot be predicted and only can be beaten by that instinctive decision making Boxer is talking about. an ai wont think instinctively to send 2 drones to enemy base to proxy hatch in case a cannon rush is not scouted and dealt with in time.
All this brings another factor into play if a human can predict what a machine input will do in a certain case (send perfect amount of drones to deal with cannon rush but it is still unknown that will cannon finish or not, which can be exploited).
A machine is no matter what, always limited by the input data (by humans). Unless the same instinctive pattern of human conciousness can be implemented in a distant future, they can never be like you Neo sOs.
|
On March 14 2016 20:59 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 20:44 beg wrote:
Keep in mind, "deep learning" is around for how long? 10 years only? Computer power is still developing fast.
Give it another 100 years... or maybe 500... who knows...
We're seeing the beginning of something beautiful right now. Not sure that you understood my point.
Not sure you had any point at all.
|
On March 14 2016 21:11 Dakota_Fanning wrote:
A well written AI will/would be able to beat any human player with half the human's APM (that "half" ratio is not written in stone).
As many wrote before, the AI would use its allowed APM to do just the actions that are needed, no spam, no misclick, no selection to check unit's health or energy. An AI doesn't need to scroll/click on a hatchery to see when next larva inject is required etc. An AI would never miss any drop "flying in" on the minimap, an AI would react to a drop in the same millisecond it becomes visible (e.g. that comes into the range of any unit).
As an extreme example, the AI could mimic the exact game engine (but of course using only the "visible/public" part of the scene) to calculate any battle, even before it happens (different actions / micro take into account as variations to calculate different outcomes).
It's just a matter of how many hours and energy is put into it, and what computational power is at the AI's disposal, it's absolutely not a question whether it could beat pro players.
Would an AI then be able to beat a human that could control the game directly by thought? Of course the answer to that is yes. Even if, for example, both AI and human had the exact same calculations/second the AI would ALWAYS react faster because its signals simply travel MUCH faster than a biological brain's (the difference in reaction time between the AI and human is the amount of extra time the AI will have to make calculations before the human is even aware of the event).
Going back, however, to the question at the beginning of this reply; I believe that if AlphaGo was going to beat a human player in the near future (where the human is playing with kb/m) it would be doing it without any of the physical restraints that the human player is bound to. If the human were to, in that same scenario, be able to control the game simply by thought then AlphaGo would most likely be beaten every time.
Ultimately the truth is that a non-biological form of sentience/intelligence is going to not only be orders of magnitude more creative, but also so incomprehensibly faster that to it a human intelligence would be more comparable with a sloth than to itself.
|
On March 14 2016 20:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 19:59 Liquid`Bunny wrote:Well of course the AI will be able to beat human starcraft players, regardless of it being apm capped or not, as long as they put enough effort into making it. However it would be boring if players didn't take on the challenge of beating it, i myself would love to experience playing against it, we might learn something! Also it's kind of funny how everyone is viewing the AI winning as humans "losing" I think it would be a great achievement for humanity to make an AI that can learn such a complex task As long as they create some laws restricting AI from taking over the world~~
Lack of opposable thumbs should keep everyone relatively safe.
|
Bisutopia19343 Posts
Until the AI plays a person, it won't learn the micro tricks that players contain: Stacked lurkers, glitching through mineral lines, observer on top of missile turret. Hell, even ally your opponent so their spider mines don't work could be used.
On the other side, what are the selection limitations of the computer? If a Terran floats barracks over a hatchery then the hatchery is un-selectable. If a barracks is on top of a cluster of tanks that sit on the high ground, then the tanks cannot be target by direct mouse clicks. Does the computer have to abide by the same rules in that sense?
|
On March 14 2016 23:21 BisuDagger wrote:
Until the AI plays a person, it won't learn the micro tricks that players contain: Stacked lurkers, glitching through mineral lines, observer on top of missile turret. Hell, even ally your opponent so their spider mines don't work could be used.
On the other side, what are the selection limitations of the computer? If a Terran floats barracks over a hatchery then the hatchery is un-selectable. If a barracks is on top of a cluster of tanks that sit on the high ground, then the tanks cannot be target by direct mouse clicks. Does the computer have to abide by the same rules in that sense?
The more likely outcome of a fully developed AI aimed to beat top human players will be rather the reverse IMO- they will have far superior micro and it is probable that we learn micro tricks from it. Though we won't be able to use them as it will be physically impossible for humans most of the time
Check out this sweety pie AI with his basic Muta vs Archon micro from 2009 here
Not sure if the AI will need humans for this
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
