|
There are few points that people here seem to misunderstand:
1. Starcraft IS turn based. The difference from Go is that a turn in Starcraft has to be done in 1/400 of minute, while in Go the AI has to implement some kind of time management.
2. Starcraft compared to Go, requires much more programming work to be done. But when it's done, it will be much easier for AI to master. Because it's much easier at given time in the game to say who is ahead, compared to Go.
3. I can wait for a moment to watch two AI bots fighting in Starcraft with Korean commentators screaming. Imagine what a beautiful game that would be, with insane multitasking!
|
Everything humans can do computers will be able to do it better... if not now, certainly later.
Except being stupid, I think we are pretty damn invincible at being stupid.
|
Norway839 Posts
Naive. Of course AIs will be able to beat humans, even with APM/micro limitations (no mineral hax etc). It will take a lot of work to get the AI to such a stage, but a computer's game-sense and execution will be absolute next level, far beyond that of any human. Perfect memory, perfect theory. Obviously the awkward 'mindless machine' quirks will be dealt with in the development of the AI. If the computer is fast enough to process well in "broodwar real-time" with several strategic layers working together (like AlphaGo), humans won't stand a chance. It will take crazy strong computers to do this, but progress is always there. Would be very cool to watch and I hope they undertake the project 
|
On March 13 2016 07:56 arbiter_md wrote:
There are few points that people here seem to misunderstand:
1. Starcraft IS turn based.
I don't mean to offend you but this is not what turn based means. Turn based means that you have to wait your opponent to play before you can do anything.
This is not the case with brood war as you might have noticed...
|
This would be so cool to watch.
|
I'm 100% sure a perfect AI can beat any progamer, at least 90% of the time. Right now most sc2 players probably can't even beat Insane AI, while all pros and hardcore sc2 players find them pretty easy. But if you're going to disagree that a human can beat a computer, think of this: every sc2 unit has somewhat of a "counter" unit. So you make 5+ marines? AI makes 1-2 banelings, not to mention, you can easily program them to never get out-micro'ed, out-economied, make 3rd cc in base? Zerg AI will send a drone for a 4th hatch AND make a good enough defense to counter your potential attack on the 4th, main army, OR drops in the main. SC2 really is about perfect micro/macro, you can say but humans have 'better' game sense or preparations going into the game with a perfect plan, but EVERY sc2 unit or build can be countered. Remember, think of going vs someone who has a PERFECT micro, even-sized army, chances of winning is pretty much next to none.
|
On March 13 2016 08:10 iFU.pauline wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 07:56 arbiter_md wrote:
There are few points that people here seem to misunderstand:
1. Starcraft IS turn based. I don't mean to offend you but this is not what turn based means. Turn based means that you have to wait your opponent to play before you can do anything. This is not the case with brood war as you might have noticed...
You are right ofc, starcraft is rts, which is the total opposite of turnbased.
BUT with a sufficiently powerful computer (that probably doesn't exist yet) it basically becomes turn based.
Imagine if we would have slowed down the game to run at 5% of how fast it is currently going (gamespeed) it would still be rts but it would be so slow that that it would be more of a turn based game than an rts.
The difference between rts and turnbased is that the most important thing in rts is what you prioritize what to do with your time. In starcraft a computer could do everything basically at once, thus removing the rts factor and turning it into turn based.
|
I think an AI capable of beating a starcraft pro is a lot further off than people here think, but it will be possible eventually. Question is how long does it take.
I think its also important to note that real-time strategy always includes an element of chaos/random chance, so unlike chess/go where a perfect AI should never lose, I don't think its the same in RTS.
|
Since SC isn't a perfect information game, it stands to reason that a good human player should always have the ability to at least take occasional games off of an AI. Nevertheless, even though I love Boxer and Flash, they're kidding themselves if they think that there will never be an AI that can reliably take games off of them. Most people in the gaming community think AIs are a joke because bots in video games are always easy to beat. If a company like Google or IBM threw significant resources into making a video game AI, these people would very quickly be eating their words lol. There is nothing in either Starcraft game that remotely approaches the intractability of Go, and mechanics-wise a good AI would be able to completely shit on any human player.
|
|
|
On March 13 2016 08:09 Liquid`Snute wrote:Naive. Of course AIs will be able to beat humans, even with APM/micro limitations (no mineral hax etc). It will take a lot of work to get the AI to such a stage, but a computer's game-sense and execution will be absolute next level, far beyond that of any human. Perfect memory, perfect theory. Obviously the awkward 'mindless machine' quirks will be dealt with in the development of the AI. If the computer is fast enough to process well in "broodwar real-time" with several strategic layers working together (like AlphaGo), humans won't stand a chance. It will take crazy strong computers to do this, but progress is always there. Would be very cool to watch and I hope they undertake the project
This post is perfectly spot on. My thoughts as well.
|
On March 13 2016 03:08 Clonester wrote:
The same has the complete Go community said about AlphaGo and also Lee Sedol said, he will win so easy against AlphaGo. It became a train wreck... for the Go community.
Same will happen with AlphaStarcraft for Boxer, Flash, Bisu and the complete Community.
This sentiment is wrong. Widespread availability of past-master programs will be to Go (and Starcraft) what it has been for chess. When everyone has a super-human practice partner, the human game gets much deeper.
|
AI by definition is imperfect! It can lose at any game it plays, and it will never become perfect. The easiest proof of its imperfection is if you put it to play against itself.
It works with probabilities, and tries to emulate the human behavior. The difference from human is it can do it tirelessly. It's like a human who lived for a thousand years being biologically all the time at age 25. Doing one thing all his life.
|
On March 13 2016 08:17 ProBell wrote:
I'm 100% sure a perfect AI can beat any progamer, at least 90% of the time. Right now most sc2 players probably can't even beat Insane AI, while all pros and hardcore sc2 players find them pretty easy. But if you're going to disagree that a human can beat a computer, think of this: every sc2 unit has somewhat of a "counter" unit. So you make 5+ marines? AI makes 1-2 banelings, not to mention, you can easily program them to never get out-micro'ed, out-economied, make 3rd cc in base? Zerg AI will send a drone for a 4th hatch AND make a good enough defense to counter your potential attack on the 4th, main army, OR drops in the main. SC2 really is about perfect micro/macro, you can say but humans have 'better' game sense or preparations going into the game with a perfect plan, but EVERY sc2 unit or build can be countered. Remember, think of going vs someone who has a PERFECT micro, even-sized army, chances of winning is pretty much next to none.
An AI doesn't even have to be close to perfect to beat any progamer 100% of the time. Google admitted AlphaGo is nowhere near being a perfect AI, but I suspect it will beat anyone close to 100% of the time if not 100%. I'll be amazed if Sedol takes a game. Perfect is such a colossal standard that even the best of the best pale in comparison.
|
4713 Posts
I think way too many of you are just going into this thinking of perfect mechanics and mid to late game engagements where the AI just destroys humans. I think that's a pretty narrow view of how things would unfold. The AI would need to learn such intricacies as scouting and interpreting the information it sees, because if the AI gets bunker rushed 3 times in a row all its perfect micro and mechanics will be useless.
Yes its true BW and SC2 are very heavily mechanics dependent and a human would probably get destroyed if he'd try to fight an AI toe to toe in any late game situation. However the early to mid game humans can probably juggle a lot of tasks efficiently enough to the point the advantage of an AI would be negligible and then the game sense would kick in. How does the AI learn the subtle differences between a economic 1/1/1 or a offensive one? Or the difference between the different variations of Gateway all-ins (with or without blink).
Yeah probably in 5-10 years the programmers will crack it. But I think they'll have one hell of a fight ahead of them when tackling BW and SC2, the information acquisition, interpretation and decisions modules will probably take tons of time to fine tune and refine.
|
On March 13 2016 08:35 writer22816 wrote:
Since SC isn't a perfect information game, it stands to reason that a good human player should always have the ability to at least take occasional games off of an AI. Nevertheless, even though I love Boxer and Flash, they're kidding themselves if they think that there will never be an AI that can reliably take games off of them. Most people in the gaming community think AIs are a joke because bots in video games are always easy to beat. If a company like Google or IBM threw significant resources into making a video game AI, these people would very quickly be eating their words lol. There is nothing in either Starcraft game that remotely approaches the intractability of Go, and mechanics-wise a good AI would be able to completely shit on any human player.
A sufficiently advanced AI would be able to do all the scouting it needs to gain enough information to win every time. It would remember everything perfectly and calculate the implications of what it learns with extreme precision. The biggest challenge is programming the decisions it will need to make based off this information.
|
I wouldn't be as confident as BoxeR, but I think humans do have more of an advantage in StarCraft as a game of imperfect information, real-time strategy, and frankly bring a far less mature game than chess or go. I think it is much easier with these qualities to bug out a computer AI or to present it with a totally novel strategy where it cannot rely on its computational superiority (Deep Blue) or a large database of past games (AlphaGo) to find a solution quickly enough.
That's not to say it will always be the case, but such a challenge will require a next level of machine learning and AI that will probably take a few years to get the adequate processing power and break down the problem into manageable chunks.
Edit: I am assuming the computer would be forced into some restrictions similar to a human, such as having to be external to the computer running the game and having to process only what it can see on a monitor. Its apm would thus be constrained to what the SC client can allow it to do, so it can't, say, spam millions of clicks per second over the entire map.
|
On March 13 2016 08:17 ProBell wrote:
I'm 100% sure a perfect AI can beat any progamer, at least 90% of the time. Right now most sc2 players probably can't even beat Insane AI, while all pros and hardcore sc2 players find them pretty easy. But if you're going to disagree that a human can beat a computer, think of this: every sc2 unit has somewhat of a "counter" unit. So you make 5+ marines? AI makes 1-2 banelings, not to mention, you can easily program them to never get out-micro'ed, out-economied, make 3rd cc in base? Zerg AI will send a drone for a 4th hatch AND make a good enough defense to counter your potential attack on the 4th, main army, OR drops in the main. SC2 really is about perfect micro/macro, you can say but humans have 'better' game sense or preparations going into the game with a perfect plan, but EVERY sc2 unit or build can be countered. Remember, think of going vs someone who has a PERFECT micro, even-sized army, chances of winning is pretty much next to none.
you're :
not talking about the same game
assuming the ai has full map vision
assuming the game is about 1 fight and who has a better army wins
|
France12770 Posts
On March 13 2016 08:58 DuckloadBlackra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 08:35 writer22816 wrote:
Since SC isn't a perfect information game, it stands to reason that a good human player should always have the ability to at least take occasional games off of an AI. Nevertheless, even though I love Boxer and Flash, they're kidding themselves if they think that there will never be an AI that can reliably take games off of them. Most people in the gaming community think AIs are a joke because bots in video games are always easy to beat. If a company like Google or IBM threw significant resources into making a video game AI, these people would very quickly be eating their words lol. There is nothing in either Starcraft game that remotely approaches the intractability of Go, and mechanics-wise a good AI would be able to completely shit on any human player. A sufficiently advanced AI would be able to do all the scouting it needs to gain enough information to win every time. It would remember everything perfectly and calculate the implications of what it learns with extreme precision. The biggest challenge is programming the decisions it will need to make based off this information.
You can prevent scouting from happening, you can cancel buildings or fly CC, you can kill your own units... or many other random things. The incomplete information is a really tricky issue, as well as the notion of "perfect" micro.
The fun thing is that even if you make two AI play against each other with unlimited APM and complete information, maybe (speaking of sc2) you can't solve the game or one race is indeed overpowered or whatever, thus in the "real" game you can't ensure win either.
So being too confident in either side is probably a bad idea.
|
Most of people are saying that an AI would beat a human at starcraft based of the assumption that in the future it will. That's stupid... How do you want to debate with that type of arguments :/ The thread is about AlphaGo present day. And it is nowhere near that. And even if it manages to do it in 50 years when no one is left playing Starcraft. What's the point...
Anyway, the thing that would definitely settle this debate is to know if all problems can be solved by calculations...
If yes, then eventually AI would be capable just by itself to run a campaign and become president. Or eradicate say, violence in the world.
Now talk about taking it to the next level...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
