The problem is see is the AI is not better than the human, it's just 1000x faster at APM / macro. It could have a "shit" bo and still win because it's so much faster than a human. It's not really interesting tbh.
The real issue I have here is the game can be won by just outplaying the other at macro.
Edit:
They actually say exactly what I just said:
These results suggest that AlphaStar’s success against MaNa and TLO was in fact due to superior macro and micro-strategic decision-making, rather than superior click-rate, faster reaction times, or the raw interface.
It feels like bruteforce not really AI, that's my point.
If a computer knows everything about the game ( mvmt speed, projectile speed, ect ... ) how it is you call it smart where it's just computing power to know when to engage and when not.
> was in fact due to superior macro and micro-strategic decision-making
That's exactly the crux of the accomplishment! How are you writing this off as not impressive?! Like, what exactly do you want the AI to be able to do if not win by superior strategic decision-making??
> how can you call it smart when it's just computing power to know when to engage and when not.
But it ISN'T just computing power, any more than AlphaGo was. If it was, then they would have already done this years ago, wouldn't they? Anyone could just rent some servers off AWS and do it. it isn't even remotely that simple.
It's a major work of algorithmic innovation, and you don't seem to understand that.
Computer apm is not the same as human apm. Humans have numerous unnecessary actions, whereas computers don’t. This is visible just watching the game. Computer dominated on micro.
When the computer lost, it was because it failed to cope with a basic macro curveball
So when AlphaStar is doing 1000-1500 APM, there's no way a human could do that or compete with that. This doesn't impress me because it's obvious if you create something that can do something way faster than a human it will win.