DeepMind Can Now Beat Us at Multiplayer Games, Too
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I would like to see them use their talent and financial backing from Alphabet to tackle the hard problems of common sense in AI and in general the science of what it will take to reach AGI.
Deep learning is brittle, as can be seen in the good science of finding adversarial attacks on trained models. I would like to see less accuracy on dev and test sets, smaller more general models, and especially not see convolutional models as the basis for vision systems in self driving cars. My intuition is that discarding information of relative positions and relative relationships of large features in an image is a bad idea for the self driving car problem.
They have really pushed progress for an old technology (reinforcement learning) and achieved fantastic results but in my experience if there are not many failures along the way, then perhaps goals are not being set high enough.
They were saying there is a critical mass where procedural tools feed into procedural tools and a lot of the pipeline is automated, then it becomes extremely cheap to make more content.
So back to your point: I think this is where we will see AI more in game dev, it will be as smart tools to empower creators to make stuff more easily. I don't think the AI will make the game, I think it will assist the humans with the creation of it.
Here is a talk about Spiderman and how much proc gen they used there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aw9uyj9MAE
Unlike a game of chess where the mind is basically the only one at work, this time the "body" might have had just as much of an input. Even regular bots were good enough for most players anyway :).
I see now that reaction time was compensated for. No info on accuracy.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/googles-ai-group-mov...
People were attempting to build StarCraft agents for 10 years. 50000 actions per minute, complete vision of the entire map, predefined scripted build orders, restrictions on human opponents - nothing worked. A moderately competent player would destroy those old bots in 10 out of 10 games, it wasn't close.
These games have so much more to them than reaction time and dexterity, these new agents are doing something that simply wasn't possible before.
Sure but they're still an important part of the end result which most people don't consider. For many the title just says "AI beats human mind". If you want to know which mind is better then compare minds, all else equal.
"Dumb" bots have been kicking player's butts for years now. Not because of intelligence but because everything else was not equal: great aim, great reaction time, great situational awareness. So aren't you curious how much the "intelligence" part evolved?
Imagine a 100m sprint where one of the runners has to wear army boots and backpack. Would you even bother drawing a conclusion?
From a research standpoint though, it'd be a waste of time.
After all, humans cheat, would we want that allowed by an AI. Equally an AI could stumble upon an exploit in a game and not realise it is an expliot - ie item duplication.
But this opens up a whole new aspect of gaming that AI has yet to touch that I'm aware of.
Though I feel we are still a way of from having computers with a moral-coprocessor, and still very much early days with AI. But that is certainly something that is within our lifetimes.
I don't think they managed to connect Excel to their game environments yet.
The reference is simple: SkyNet fought war, and a war is a type of multiplayer game.
Am I missing something?
[1] - https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26871027...