I am not sure if the training is done live or not--that is does the algorithm learn based on each game against a real, live player? Or do they just train the model offline, then allow players to play against the static model?
When it was first demonstrated, it really looked like it was doing very smart things (while also taking advantage of the fact that it doesn't have attention lapses and hand fatigue) and reacting well to different strategies on a level that was freaky to me.
But still really damn handy!
The question is, can it then apply partial applications of learned techniques to create unique offenses and defenses in novel situations I think.
Something humans hadn't thought of yet, but were also psychically capable of doing.
Too me that will be the true moment that the AI has really surpassed us.
I guess you could phrase it that way, but that's essentially the problem statement for developing a strategy for an imperfect-information game. So I would say it is a flaw in the principle if their final output is exploitable.
In both cases, it was indeed a static model but more recent work which is called MuZero is not static and achieves great results in board games and atari.
And a few games of being exploited is nowhere near enough data for the AI to be re-trained.
Also, did the StarCraft AI have to move the camera around? I remember watching the show matches. In those the AI lost the match that it had to handle the camera and couldn't just give impossible orders that a player's interface would not allow.