iotb

Indeed. I don't see anyone born in the 80s/90s dictating policies or in politics. I see the same boomers that sold this country's middle class up the river still doing what they do best. Gray and white hair, wealth from a career of servicing companies, steps away from the grave and they still don't want to let go of the reigns for the "new generation". It's like a sick obsession they have with trying to control the world. Never stopping once to enjoy what they have profited from their enterprises... Seemingly aiming to dictate policy until they take their last breath.

The state of politics in this country is at trash tier levels.. Even more insane when you think of the trillions of dollars tied up in this circus and what it could do for American society if it was actually put to good use.

I see this as a system that started off with good intentions, order, and promise that eventually just gets ran down with clowns. Interestingly, a good number of 1st world countries have governance of similar characteristics right now. It's like they lost the narrative as to what they should be doing so just engage in a soap opera on a day to day basis to keep up appearances.. Meanwhile squandering trillions of dollars of tax payer money.

Children want a lot of things that aren't good for them. If they have bad parents or their environmental conditions are down-trotten enough, it's not a mystery of what becomes of the majority of them. Democracies are a viscous feedback loop which in modern times has been functioning at the highest levels based on corporate interest in lobbyist. It's a fit of bread and circuses. A system run down in the long run as all do. So, it's hard to definitively point the finger. However, it can be summarized as the collective. The question becomes more critically as to who alters the broader rules, game, and game state and who simply is just a peon player trying their best to optimize. When a problem festers long enough, it becomes systemic. When the environment becomes toxic enough, the individual player becomes as ruthless as those at the top albeit within their own scale. Take an honest look at the west and this is where we are at now. Most politicians do nothing for the greater good of the country besides waste tax payer money and in many cases do things that harm people's overall wellbeing. Trillions of dollars are siphoned out of people's pay checks and the basic infrastructure of the country is dilapidated. Education K-12 is a hollowed out mess. Our gateways to the internet are profiteer centers instead of public domain. Our healthcare system centers on profit maximization over patient health. Our food products are filled with cheap junk fillers that cause diabetes/cancer... Common sense telling people this for years only to find a decade later companies like Monsato did the obvious damage to society. No worries... They pay a fine that goes predominately to regulators and lawyers.

Economic progress occurred significantly in the 90s and early 2000s and it seemed the west was on a path towards brilliance. Then came the b.s wars .. Then came the greed that destroyed the middle class. Then came the over-financialization. Then came the unregulated housing fleecing (which is still going namely in the bay area). Then came the wave of Academic Institutions joining in on the free-for-all w/ insane inflation of tuition.

Technology meanwhile was solving problems. There was no need for insane tuitions/fees given that we had high speed internet and video anywhere. However, it was put under wraps.

Then comes the social junk for the masses in which a broad based information utility that could bring society to a higher level was turned into an information warfare tool.

We had economic progress. Technology intensified. Individualism really isn't all that pronounced. There is more group think than ever as masses of people became social media zombies. Critical thinking is gone. Families and long lasting wholesome interaction is gone. It's essentially a big manipulative profit maximization experiment gone wrong. There are no social standards guiding production. It's a free-for-all.

The obvious outcomes are now being realized : https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-cu...

Social Media has had detrimental effects on people's psychology and mental health.

The obvious was obvious before these trends. They were ignored because profit was the central theme and the purpose was to maximize it. Things don't spontaneously just happen. They occur for a reason.

I've spent some time in Germany. It's expensive and the pay is lack luster. They don't have career mobility of ascension as people are staffed based on Age. Young people aren't having kids because they don't feel a deep connectivity to their home land. They don't see the need to preserve their culture/roots because culturally the country shunned and shamed it. So, with a globalist chancellor like Merkel they decided to decimate the local populist with a flood of immigrants all for the mighty dollar.

Socially, Germany killed off a range of cultures. Women don't have the connection they do to their kids as they do in other cultures... It would take me pages to detail. Suffice to say, the powers that be didn't allow Germany's population to slide for long did they? Nope.. The economic engine must persist. So, they're flooding it with immigrants w/ zero regard to the local populist. Its in this moment, you see what is being looked out for and why such conditions persist. It's the flawed economic engine over people and when this is the game being played .. People indeed become divided, selfish, and stop broad considerations of the long term and earth. Why invest in an entity of the future when it is clear that the world they will be born into will turn to crap? To a country trying to destroy its own culture and people? as evidenced by the trends and things you see before your very eyes? So yeah, a smart person goes towards 'individualism' and short term enjoyment will it is still to be had.

There's no mystery to how prior civilizations hit collapse events when I read comments like this. Every system has a limit, if you don't believe this is the case, you'll likely hit it in catastrophic fashion.

In the year 2018, you'd think people would be more focused on higher pursuits and inquiries about the Universe than just a joy ride from life to death and a maximization driven social trend to see how much money you can make and spend in a lifetime.

Anytime prior civilizations have forgotten about the fundamentals or considered themselves to be so technologically advanced to be beyond the impact of nature, there usually is a reckoning and that reckoning usually occurs at the peak of society when resources are being improperly dedicated to vanity and idiocy. There's a reason the hallmark structures of past civilizations are erected pretty close to their demise.

The Sun goes through cycles we have yet to fully understand. That alone could cause significant effects to the earth and its something we have zero control over. I'd think it would be a far better social culture to be focused on dedicating resources to exploring and studying the universe and fundamental nature therein than mining clown coins via bit flipping wasting energy/computing resources on a ponzi scheme. However, look how many billions are involved with this.. In a so called modern highly educated society.

As far as population goes, why does a human being feel entitled to have kids? Why are there so many poor individuals having kids? Why should we try to test the limit of nature's carrying capacity? Why do we continue to push the world population higher? We did we create economic models that depend on population growth? Again, a different kind of life from just popping out kids and enjoy the rides of life. A life of inquiry and the pursuit of understanding....

> There's a lot more room left for human growth on this planet

Until there's not or nature throws you a cyclical curve ball. See history for what the results are.

I don't recall pinning them all on capitalism. That is a typical false classification someone engages in who wants to dismiss any real world analysis of the underlying causes. Then you go on to argue from this basis for the remainder of your commentary. I won't engage you further because you have misclassified my framing on purpose I could imagine and are falsely arguing against something I never stated. I detailed a range of different reasons why Birth rates are down. If you want to accurately refute any particular point you're more than welcome. But I will not engage your falsely framed retort in the least.

> You are pointing out some real problems

And yet.. you're trying to falsely refute them. Meanwhile, you present nothing but 'Yeah you pointed out some real problems ... but dude.. it's totally nothing"

Agency is framed by social context. Does someone have the same Agency in America as Canada, Europe, Sweden, Japan, China? Do they express the same cultural/social trends? What happens when a country like China bans certain social activity? What about your agency then? What happens when China bans certain apps that have no social value whatsoever and will lead to a more impoverished state? What happens when a country is steeped in nonsensical divisive idiocy vs a mature country that doesn't tolerate it socially? Agency means nothing without context. Cultures are pushed through mainstream media in the west. If you deny that, you have something cognitively wrong. Agency means nothing when you don't exercise it and live your life based on populist trends which is what the majority of people do. Thus the term : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_ideology

You began with : > You are pointing out some real problems

And went off to lala land. I'm not a Marxist. I'm not an anti-capitalist. I'm a realist. Reply with something better.

You make things wildly unaffordable. You make the most basic need of a human being (a roof over their head a ponzi scheme speculative investment) You destroy the middle class. You plunge everyone into debt with over- financialization. You play divisive social games to cement power structures finalizing in men vs. women politics. You destroy the family unit. You undermine men. You push male guilt. You push social trends for women to party through their most fertile years You convince women that long term monogamous relationships are prison... You turn everyone on to Tinder and glorify transient lifestyles... All because such lifestyles make various corporations richer via higher consumption.. society be damned. Optimal profit at the expense of broader society... Up until broader societal conditions drag down corporations that made it so.

The cause and effect are obvious to anyone w/ two brain cells.

And just to show its all for the almighty dollar, millions of dollars are pumped into studies/research of this phenomenon only to avoid the elephants in the room. We call this modern society where we pretend to not know why things are the way they are. Society optimizes for certain things like profit above all else and there are a slew of negative outcomes or things that are harmed as a result.

Why would someone have a kid in the current environment? This process is pushed out to someone who either is quite wealthy and has no impact or is quite poor and is uncaring of the impact. The middle is hallowed out. It's why from anywhere from the first world EU to the US there is a big push for immigration. That too is steeped in economic factors and has little to do w/ a genuine interest in helping people. Instead of fixing core societal problems, the powers that be deem it easier to just pave over the domestic populous with new-comers who would willingly tolerate such conditions and birth new workers into the fold. The middle core of the population deems it ridiculous to have kids. The number crunchers see this as an impact to their precious economic models... and thus comes the political push to import people from places in the world who have kids in far more impoverished conditions and see 1st world countries as a step up.

Not sure how this comment will go here but that's just the plain reality. A reality people like to play pretend they don't know exists. A reality people make hordes of money to ignore and further. Humanity will pay a hefty price in the years to come for these stupid games we play. Historically, various reckonings have occurred when civilizations and empires play these stupid games. Then the cycle resets and is born again only to arrive at the same juncture when people stray far enough from sound principals.

He says it. Others have done it years ago.

To make an accurate projection or statement about something, it is generally necessary that you have a sound understanding of it. This is just my general intelligence speaking here. I see nothing of note that reflects that this person has a fundamental understanding of General Intelligence or has even been in the pursuit of it. Authoring an optimization algorithm suite doesn't mean you have an understanding of General Intelligence. A non-read before even clicking on the link. Two posts today about AGI. Seems the next hype train is arriving right on schedule and its banner will be (AGI).

You're focusing on an aspect of Neurons in which there isn't even an accurate understanding and attempting to make a direct mapping to computer hardware. This is framing w/o understanding and you should be able to clearly understand why you can't make analysis or forward projections based on it.

Video cards operate on a pretty limited scope of computing that might not even be compatible with Neuron's fundamental algorithm. The only thing SIMD has proven favorable towards is basic mathematics operations with low divergence which is why Optimization algorithm based NN function so well on them.

This is the entrapment many people in the industry fall for. The first step towards AGI is in admitting you have zero understanding of what it is. If one doesn't do this and simply projects their schooling/thinking and try to go from there, you end up with a far shorter accomplishment.

You can't back derive aspects of this problem. You have to take your gloves off and study the biology from the bottom up and spend the majority of your time in the theoretical/test space. Not many are willing to do this even in the highest ranking universities (Which is why I didn't pursue a PhD).

There is far too little motivation for true understanding in this world which is why the majority of the world's resources and efforts are spent on circling the same old time test wagons.. Creating problems then creating a business model to solve it. We are only fooling ourselves in this mindless endeavors. When you break free long enough, you see it for what it is and also see the paths towards more fundamental pursuits. Such pursuits aren't socially celeberated or rewarded. So, you're pretty much on your own.

> As I see it, that's what AGI is, and that seems to scare people, forcing them to confront their most deeply held beliefs about the meaning of life, religion, etc.

One thing about this interesting Universe is that when a thing's time has come it comes. It points to a higher order of things. There's great reason and purpose to address these problems now and its why AGI isn't far off. If you look at various media/designs, society is already beckoning for it.

If only this wasn't an fundamentally flawed theory that isn't scalable based on computational complexity and information theory.

Entrenched mindsets don't like for the flaws in their views to be highlighted. It's one of Humanity's most serious flaws. As far as AGI being 10-20 years away based purely on compute power, you can't make this statement accurately unless you have a firm understanding of the underlying algorithms that power human intelligence and by extension AGI. From there, you also need to have a formal education and deep industry experience with Hardware to know what its capabilities are today, what they will be in the future roadmap wise, and how to most efficiently map an AGI algorithm to them. I'd say that 0.1% of people have this understanding and nobody is listening to them.

> The real problem though (as I see it) is that the vast majority of the best and brightest minds in our society get lost to the demands of daily living. I've likely lost any shot I had at contributing in areas that will advance the state of the art since I graduated college 20 years ago. I think I'm hardly the exception. Without some kind of exit, winning the internet lottery basically like Elon Musk, we'll all likely see AGI come to be sometime in our lifetimes but without having had a hand in it.

They don't get lost so much as they become trapped for reasons due to systematic and flawed optimization structures found throughout society. All is not lost if one breaks out long enough to realize they can make certain pursuits if they are willing to make a sacrifice. The bigger the pursuit, the bigger the required sacrifice. Not many people are willing to do that in the valley when you have a quarter of a million dollar paycheck staring you in the face. You could of course make a decision to sacrifice everything one given day and you'd have 5 years of runway easily if you saved your money properly. Obviously, VC capital wont fund you. Obviously universities aren't the way to go given the obsession with Weak AI. Obviously no AI group will hire you unless you have a PhD and/or are obsessed with Weak AI. Obviously you might not even want this as it will cloud your mind. So, clearly, the way to make ground breaking progress is to walk off your job, fund a stretch of research yourself, and be willing to sacrifice everything. Quite the sacrifice? People will laugh at you. What happens if you fail? Socially, per the mainstream trend, you'll fall behind. If you have a partner, this will be even more difficult as the trend is to get rich quick, get promoted to management, buy a million dollar home, have kids, stay locked in a lucrative position at a company. And what of your pride? Indeed.. And therein is the true pursuit of AGI.

The winners are pushing fundamentally flawed AI techniques because it requires massive amounts of data and compute which is their primary business model. They wont succeed because they are optimizing a business model that is at the end of its cycle and not optimizing the pursuit of AGI.

AGI is coming and it is completely out of the scope of the current winners. If a person desires to pursue and develop AGI, they'd have to be bold enough to sacrifice everything... It's how all of the true discoveries are made for all of time and science. Nothing has changed but for reasons due to money primarily, when the historical learning lessons are far off enough people attempt to re-tell/re-invent the wheel in their favor.. Only to be reminded : Nothing has changed.

The individual discoverers change over time however for they learn from history.

It mainly comes down to the software and algorithmic techniques. It's not something many people want to hear as there is a lot of money and effort placed on an alternative framing. If you believe it takes massive amount of hardware/compute, it favors the current billion dollar lucrative business of cloud computing at scale. If you are made to believe it takes 100s of top ranking PhDs because its so incredibly complex, you are more likely to value the groups pursuing it higher. If the techniques and white papers are all a convoluted mess of spaghetti, one becomes of the belief that this is an unworldly pursuit.

It is none of these things however. The hardware is already capable. The fundamental techniques that are popular and theories are the flawed. Essentially, you need to start over as Geoffrey Hinton said. Something no one wants to put effort into doing or fund.

So, indeed AGI is here today. It's just not within the frame of the populist efforts. An capable individual with the freedom of doing deep pondering and constructions w/o any outside influence is more likely to crack this puzzle than a room of PhDs all systemically subscribed to the same fundamentally flawed approach of Optimization algorithms.

As far as the compute goes, does anyone even truly spend the time to understand it anymore in this day and age of frameworks on frameworks? I mean truly understand it? And there lies to other fundamental problem. How can one make broad statements about the computational requirements of AGI when the most they know about the underlying hardware is an AWS config file?

Swaths of the industry have shut themselves out from ever developing AGI. Sadly, they're the groups w/ the most funding and backing because they represent the same flawed mainstream ideology as every other AI group.

It will be an outsider and the core theoretical approach is already resolved.

What are your thoughts on Starting over completely from scratch as Geoffrey Hinton has suggested? What are you doing as a group to attract and bring on such individuals? Does this occupy any portion of your efforts at OpenAI?

If you were given a demo of an AI system that uses a completely new/revolutionary approach towards various different problems with success, how open would you be to rethinking your position on 'Optimization techniques'?

Modeling seems as a stop-gap towards getting over the limitations of Weak AI. As I recall, this is what knowledge-based expert systems tried in a time's past and failed at because it's nothing but a glorified masking of the underlying problem with limited human inputted rulesets. I don't agree with Yann LeCun that the way forward to AGI is modeling. I feel like it's the best solution people worked up towards the limitations of Weak AI which were broadly and publicly acknowledged in 2017 and early 2018.

> The main limitation right now: the ideas are very computationally expensive.

This is because the fundamental core set of algorithms being used by the industry are fundamentally flawed yet favorable to big data/cloud computing.. A quite lucractive business model for currently entrenched tech companies. It's why they spend so much effort ensuring the broad range of AI techniques fundamentally stay the way they are.. because if they do, it means boat loads of money for them.

> So we'll need engineers and researchers to help us to continue scaling our supercomputing clusters and build working systems to test our ideas. When you're attempting to resolve something and you are shown YoY that it isn't being resolved and requires even more massive amounts of compute, it means you're doing something wrong. It will be better to take a step back an re-evaluate your approach fundamentally. Again, what is the willingness you have to do so if shown something far more novel?

Accelerating the efficiency of an optimization algorithm doesn't get you AGI, this should be clear by now. As for fielding such systems, one quick way to destroy humanity to a degree is to turn everything into a glorified optimization problem which will no doubt be turned against people to maximize profit.

Did Artificial General Intelligence get redefined again towards something more short term? So, first AI is hijacked and hyped 50 ways to sunday.. Then came the apocalyptic narratives/control problem hype to secure funding for non-profit pursuits and research. Then, when it was realized that narrative couldn't go on forever. AGI was hijacked added to everyone's charter and a claim was made that it will be made 'safe'. Now, AGI's definition is getting redefined to the latest Weak AI techniques that can do impressive things on insane amounts of compute hardware. How can you ever achieve AGI if this is the framing/belief system the major apparatus of funding/work centers on? Where is the true pursuit of this problem? Where are the completely new approaches?

One cannot rule out something unless they've spent a concerted amount of time dedicated solely to trying to understanding it. If there is no fundamental understanding of Human intelligene, what is anyone frankly talking about? or doing?

I have yet to hear a cohesive understanding of human intelligence from various different AI groups. I have yet to hear a sound body of individuals properly frame a pursuit of AGI. So, what is everyone pursuing? There seems to be no grand vision or lead wrangling in all of these scattered add-on techniques to NN. I do see a lot of groups working on weak AI or chipping away at AGI like featuresets with AI techniques making claims about AGI. Everyone has become so obsessed with iterating that they fail to grasp the proper longer term technique for resolving a problem like AGI.

Void from the discussion are conversations on Neuroscience and the scientific investigation of Intelligence. There's more sound progress being made in the public sector on concepts like AGI than in the private sector. Mainly because the public sector knows how to become entrenched, scope, and target an unproven long term goal and project.

The hype as far as I see it is clearly distinguishable from the science. Without honest and sound scientific inquiries, claims in any direction are without support. Everyone's attempting to skip the science and pursue engineering in the dark with flashy public exhibitions namely because of funding.. You can't exit such a room and make sound claims about AGI. If a group claims they are pursuing AGI, I expect almost all of their work to be scientific research pursuing an understanding.

That being said, it appears no one is interested in funding or backing such an endaevour. Everyone states they want to back/invest in such a group on paper but when it comes down to it the money isn't there, they obviously are targetting shorter term goals/payouts, and/or don't frankly know what type of pursuit or group of individuals are required. No one wants to take the time to understand what such a group would look like. No one wants to make a truly longer term bet. This is why things have been spiraling in circles for years.

So, as it has been stated time and time again.. AGI will come and it will come from left field. There are individuals who truly care to pursue and develop AGI and they're willing to sacrifice everything to achieve it. If no funding is available, they'll fund themselves. If groups wont accept them because they aren't obssesed with deep learning or have a PhD (clearly the makeup that only results in convoluted weak AI), they'll start groups themselves.

Passion + Capability + lifelong pursuit is how all of the great discoveries of time have come to us. The mainstream seemingly never understanding such individuals, supporting them, or believing them until after they've proven themselves. No pivots. No populist iterations. A fully entrenched dedication towards achieving something until its done.

So, no.. you can't rule out AGI in the near term because there is no spotlight on the individuals or groups with the capability to develop it on such time horizons and the thinking just frankly isn't there in celeberated groups with funding. Everyone's in the dark and its an active choice and mindset which causes this.

Geoffery Hinton says start all over.... Yann LeCun raises red flags. No one listens. No one acts. Everyone wants a piece of the company that develops the next trillion dollar 'Google' like product space centered on AGI but no one wants to spend the time to consider what such a company would be, what is human intelligence, who is looking at it in a new way from scratch as some of the most important people in AI have stated. So, you see... This is why the unexpected happen. It is unexpected because no one spends the time or resources necessary to cultivate the understanding to expect its coming.

> My feeling is that humans are not adaptive to changing game flows either.

They are. I'd actually argue that this occurs much more in a pub game than with pros. I'm largely against the concept of a pro for this reason as it amounts moreso to having settled on lockin strategies moreso than intelligent/active/dynamic exchanges. I play a lot of pub games for this reason... To enjoy the heightened dynamics. Tons of rotations and adjustments. Tons of punishments for a great player hot dogging to break their psyche. Lots of very intense examples of dynamic human intelligence.

> Most pro games are played with a strategy that is settled once draft is finalized. If the strategy turns out not working, Humans did not show noticeably different adaptivity.

You're speaking moreso of 'pro games'. I encounter a great deal of dynamics outside of this grouping... It's where a lot of intelligence comes into play. I think a lot of people are completely uninformed about the game who watch others play a lot w/o actually playing themselves. Pro games are literal theatre for the masses like in a large number of professional leagues. The real stuff happens outside of the spotlight.

> Occasionally, a versatile team can transition from a late-game oriented line up to play a split push game.

This happens in just about every game I play... Tons of rotations and readjustments when things aren't working out [happens sometimes w/ no communication]. Tons of split pushes.. Strategic ganks. If people have good emotional stability, there will be a pronounced reflection/change after a massive team death incident.... The point of these games are highly intellectual battles. Its why it's a disservice to restrict any features of the game. It's how they maintain balance to avoid the game devolving into idiotic bot like cheesing. Games live and die based on how much cheese is present.

> But usually such transition is based on a suiting draft, which requires the team members to be versatile in playing their heroes in slightly different styles;

I'd expect pros to have these skill-sets yet I don't see it much because in such showcases its more about optimization and lockin strategies than dynamics.

> and a well-oiled team coordination to transition from one to another style.

Happens in regular pub and ranked matchups all the time many times w/ little to no communication. As long as someone is not an emotional child, it can sometimes be stressed and instantiated over prolonged swearing and yelling at various players. This is what's maybe missing from the Pro-league... Someone getting in your ass openly for doing something stupid like continuing to battle 3 well organized bots 3v1.

> In the show matches, there is no cheesing. It's plain team fight + push; the AIs executed the plan with ruthless precisions.

One of the games opened with 4 bots diving bottom tower to get a kill and persistently pushing bot. The human 'pro' sat there hashing it out even though he could have ran to safety and avoided another death and no one from top or mid tp'd to bot on the human team. This hamfisted cheesy snowballing occurred in every match on the bot's behalf because OpenAI restricted the gameplay to favor it. Even so, in a pub someone would have been swearing to the top of their lungs on a mic telling the $@(#@(%* at top/mid to immediately TP and punish such a brazen exchange especially with creeps all over them. Absolutely nothing was precise about the gameplay from the humans or bots. It was the kind of slop I see on servers from the southern portions of the world and punished heavily by any seasoned players. I guess this is where 'pros' are a meme and I've served a good number of them up with gameplay outside of their carefully scripted comfort zones.

> TBH, a typical pub game is best described as strategy-less game play. And pro games probably have 3 styles of play:

Typical pub is chaos which is why I've seen a number of pros get their behinds handed to them in it. They're sort of like bots in that they think they have the game completely figured out and have a golden strategy no one can defeat. It's a flaw not a good trait. In ranked, you're going to see some amazing gameplay even w/ random non-party individuals. Anyone who plays knows about the games where its like a symphony playing. Limited talking, tons of rotations/ganks/readjustments/team fights/split pushes/team pushes/ratting/baiting/etc.

"Pros" are not Pros in my book. They're a group of players who center on a optimal echelon of gameplay that everyone at that level tends to agree upon. Throw some dynamics in and they fall apart.

What I saw across all of the OpenAI bot games is nothing to go home writing about. If they were true to things, they'd show how these bots play in all-pick no restrictions. They claim to be after Strong AI not Weak based game bots. It's not about winning/losing... It's how you play.

This is enough of my personal commentary on this issue. People are unable to see past these approaches and what they truly are and that's fine with me at this point.

Catch you on the flip side.

> We do not know for sure in the case of OpenAI Five as there are too few public games to look at.

Thus the nature of a canned showcase demo. We do know they have a slew of restrictions. As an avid player, I know exactly why : because such combos require much deeper and true intellect to play efficiently. Even as such, given that I know i'd be up against an optimization algorithm, my strategy would be to create as much chaos and uncertainty as possible. Information theory is clear as to the impact this would have : It would be unstructured noise that would be hard to optimize and likely not seen before or significantly reflected in the AI's weighting system. This is the basis of adversarial attacks. I'm sure with a decent amount of games I'd be able to figure out a suitable one for 5 linked bots.

The perspective as to what's going on with this demo is much different if you actually play the game. I've actually seen a number of games like this bot exhibited. It's a strategy low skilled players engage in with the hope of overwhelming opponents with brute force. The character restrictions favor it. So its not by accident that this all converged into a demo that favors an unintelligent brute force optimization bot.

It favors something that can do range/hit point calculations quickly/accurately. Snowballing is required because there is no broader intelligence among the bots. When the bots snowball, it's essentially just one big optimization function. When they're stretched apart, the calculations are much harder.

Knowing what I know about the game and the fact that I'm up against a Weak AI bot with an optimized model, I'd know exactly how to screw it up with an adversarial attack. I'd train a team of people on that and show everyone exactly what human intelligence of capable of and why its superior. This happens in your average dota 2 match constantly.. Low skill players attempt brute force strategies just like these bots and you essentially wait them out and pick them apart. This isn't a new and amazing style of gameplay or something. There's already names for it.

When I used the term 'sloppy' I meant against the spirit and nature of the game and w/o consideration of the 'way in which one wins'... Ambushing towers at open 4v1 or 2 is some very hamfisted foolishness. Even in regular pub games with upper avg. players, there'd be a sharp punishment for such bro-tier gameplay. It usually results in an equally massive 'gank'. The way the human players responded in these pressure scenarios really has me questioning the whole event as I see avg. random players make far better decisions every day in dota.

That's just my unfavorable two cents. I'm not impressed because I understand how their bots are doing what they're doing, where the advantages lie, and I'm aware of what restrictions they placed on the game in favor of their bot.

Elon claims he's worried about a dark future with AI, it's actually solutions like this that are most scary because there is zero intelligence and a [by any means possible so long as you achieve the object] steering function. If you want to unleash chaos and destruction on the world and see a darker side to human intelligence you've never seen before, start releasing such 'weak AI' to manipulate people from the shadows. This is not strong AI or a path to it. It's more of the same Weak AI provided with exclusive and insane amounts of computer power/data and an objective to optimize for by any means necessary. In cases where it dominates, it's almost certainly a reliance on finding loopholes/flaws in a particular game not actual intelligence. You should see the danger in this right away.

Funny because OpenAI originally opened with the spoopy terminator like dangers of AI being so destructive we needed a group like them to save us... To now openly sharing such unintelligent and dangerous weak AI optimization platforms in the mainstream fear. Sort of like the 'Do no Evil' Mantra that was just slogan.

I think this is a great engineer accomplishment that no doubt taught them a lot. I don't see any broader 'safety' ideology underlying this... Just another great team of people trying to achieve AI like everybody else utilizing popularized approaches. It's better to just come out and say that. We can drop the 'Save the world from AI'/'Safety' superman talk and get to the brass tax of what they are doing and how, if at all, its different from what anyone else is doing in the space.

I have thousands of hours logged playing various Dota variants. I rarely watch as it's not a good way to retain skills or understand what's going on. If you play enough, you should understand exactly what I'm saying. I watch on rare occasions to get exposed to something I haven't thought of or tried but that's about it. Beating an opponent especially a good one is far different that 'breaking a bot'. What I mean by 'breaking the bot' is literally doing things to confuse an unintelligent mathematical algorithm into constant miscalculations and mis-predictions and for bonus points for finding a bug in the way it individually or collectively performs actions/interprets data. It's how their first 1v1 bot is defeated. This doesn't occur to a human being because we have intelligence and aren't just optimization algorithms purring along using game state data.

This is what Strong AI is centered on.

I'm an active player with enough hours logged to interpret the game. That being said, the observations should also be obvious to even the most novice player. I don't need a commercialized and obviously favorable and biased stream of commentary clouding a much more sound analytical capability. I'm pretty sure they're not going invite commentators that point out the obvious reality as to what is going on. Per the commentators, bot like behavior gets extra positive humanized characterization and is marked as intelligent. Whereas snowball-cheese is known as the lowest tier and least intelligent strategy in the game. There's even a set of memes in the community for people who attempt such strategies.

People need to start doing more critical analysis of their own and stop relying on commercialized and biased information and commentary when settling on an viewpoint. Watching others play only gets you so far in understanding. When you play and you see what I'm saying for yourself, you can skim through the provided clips and understand exactly what's going on.

The fact that this continues to get hyped up vs someone stating what's going on is plain sad.

Yep. This is clear to even a novice player to be a strategically chosen death ball/snowball configuration. Some of the least skilled players in Dota shoot for it but is undone by a broader range of unironically named 'intelligence' characters. It also becomes unwound in longer matches. Snowball/death ball cheese is easily bot-able and a human being would have a hard time winning vs it because you'd have to range and hit point calculations and act on it faster than a computer which a human being cannot.

> That said, my impression from watching the game was that the power of the AI had less to do with perfect reaction time and more to do with their "hive mind" coordination.

Yes, which is why they restricted character selection to favor it. There's no reason to call it a hive mind as it doesn't possess that. There's a global steering function presiding over 5 bots that need to act swiftly based on global dmg/etc. This is why they restricted the game to snowball cheese. A human can't beat this just as a human can't beat a TI-89. This is why, if you look closely, they absolutely destroy the bots when the team is separated and the human players aren't playing like greedy noobs diving towers.

> If an enemy ever gets in the wrong position, they are immediately punished by a concerted attack.

> bot : (10-9) =1 (I win) Strong AI right around the corner

There's a presiding team value function that impacts and steers team play. The bots 'communicate' through this. There's nothing magical going on.

As a counter bot strategy, I'd work on how to break and trick it using multiple-stepped logic that an optimization function would be unable to see beyond. I'd also use varying tactics of chaotic/sporadic configurations. The bot isn't 'playing fair' nor should a human w/ intelligence. The advantage being that a human can think along a multitude of strategies and adapt. The bot is only optimizing some steps ahead.

Their 1v1 bot was defeated in this manner and it just goes to show what true intellect and superiority is. I've played random pub games w/ little to no communication and have had all other 4 players converge on different strategies based on a perception of what's going on. If someone decided to cheese/snowball, you simply wait it out and let them push themselves into a nightmare. I saw little to none of this in the games I watched which leads me to question the intelligence of said 'pros'.

As someone who plays Dota, the matches were a clear demonstration of sloppy snowballing and brute force cheesing. Coordination 'appears' to be beyond human level because the bots are collectively synced on a team goal value. If a true 'pro' or pro team was allowed to observe and play multiple games against this bot, I'm more than certain one could find an exploit of such an unintelligent mathematical approach to action selection at the individual or group level. In fact, this would be what you would use dark seer strategically for or a whole host of other characters and functionality that is currently banned.

Not everything can be calculated especially when tricks are intentionally done to throw a bot off.

> I am not sure how such coordinations are modeled in dnn, which itself seems the most valuable from this research. There's a tuned group/individual driver function centered on various calculations. This is not actually a valuable part of the research as its dynamic and game dependent and can't cover all of the possibilities thus why someone broke their 1v1 bot (corner case)

> In general I think with this show match, it pretty much sealed the doom of human players in dota2.

If you are indeed a player and have viewed that many hours of dota2, I question the nature of such a comment. A great player wouldn't look to see how to 'beat' their bot, as it is a bot w/ no intelligence, the strategy would instead be to try to break it and shove it into corner cases. It's not playing the full range of characters that were intended to disrupt cheesy snowballing so I wonder why you're making such an optimistic statement .. being that you claim you have watch so many dota matches. Do you play much yourself? Maybe that would change your opinion.

> As it shows that the general approach is scalable and capable to handle the problem itself. As from laning to team fight, and item building, the AI did not show weakness at all.

I'm starting to see a pattern with your commentary. The gameplay look like your typical "south" players. Hardly anything impressive : Aggressive boneheaded tower diving and aggressive and cheesy snowballing.. If you can last past 30min, you outwit and outplay such people in the mid/late game.

> superior to humans > superior to humans > superior to humans

More than 50% of the Dota 2 dynamics aren't even present and are restricted at the moment. Are you getting paid for this post?

If it were a priority vs other items, it would have been done. It's not a priority and one of the last things on the list because doing so exposes their Bot to a much broader range of intellectual challenge as per the game design. Now, without sound rebuttals, I too have been downvoted. This is why a certain aspect of the tech community will be forever resigned to Weak AI masquerading as strong AI. You aren't open to new ideas or challenges and mask the glaring issues of a particular approach behind canned demos.

My points stand on their own. I take downvotes w/ no sound rebuttals as a signal that I'm saying something that right and an inconvenient truth.

> Or you could provide us some literature on the broad strokes you’re making.

I began my work by not pretending that weak AI is something that other than what it is and prioritized the more challenging aspects of AI

When they demo'd this over a year ago, they gave the human player a laundry list of instructions and the bot was still defeated once the keen human player used their intellect to analyze what was going on and 'break the bot'. The fact that the bot didn't recover or understand how it was being broken examples the true nature of what's going on : It's just a dumb bot w/ lots of training time. If intelligence were present, it too would understand like the human being what was going on and change things up. This is actual the crucial thing that needs to be demonstrated and targeted but you see .. This gets in the realm of the class of 'hard problems' that a number of these well funded and popularized groups aren't attacking.

As for Dota, indeed the broader game was designed and is constantly updated to be an intellectual challenge. Cheese strategies exists. When discovered, game rebalances are conducted to ensure players don't settle in on brute force exploits.

In just 5-10min of watching some of the matches, I already know a handful of characters that would 'break the bot' on this 5 bot ensemble. This is powered by human intellect (the truly significant part). The bots trained across time horizons greater than a human lifetime in this unorthodox and slanted arrangement. Human beings seasoned on a more well rounded and balance game are then thrown to the bots and showcased. I know who would be sold on this and its not your average Dota player.

Again, the fact that it is possible to 'break the bot' examples that the whole thing is a charade. I have no doubt they might have gained some experienced/understanding with engineering this solution but the actual result is lipstick on a 'backpropaganda' pig.

More fundamental deep research and less theatrics is in order. I'd also advise becoming seasoned in the thinking behind a particular game if you're trying to test and develop an artificial form of intelligence to navigate it and beyond.

As a seasoned player of Dota watching the replays, I can see exactly what's going on. There's lots of snowballing/cheese which are the least common denominators of gameplay and least intellectual. Such dynamics would no doubt be dominated by a bot like program which is why they choose them. I could imagine that people who aren't seasoned players are impressed by this but this reads like an average wood league "south" game. People who play Dota will know what I'm referring to in reference to "south". In such games, the strategy is simple : You beat out the brute-force cheese snowballing w/ intellect. However, this is where they no doubt decided to put up the artificial red tape.

You're 100% right and being down voted for it as I no doubt will. I am not impressed because I've played a ton of games and observed a ton of dynamics. You can tell in the first 10min what level and type of game play is occurring and it isn't of the intellectual variant. It's of the bot variant. Broader Dota was designed and constantly updated to combat such gameplay. When people settle on cheese strategies or exploits, they intentionally change the game balance to prevent it.

I'm more interested in how this is achieved than what it has been tuned to try to trick people into believing. Looking under the hood, I see the same thing when I look across all Weak AI solutions : Lots of hand coded steering functions with dynamic weights populated by incredible amounts of brute-force random searching (past a human lifetime of average gameplay).

While this may secure headlines and funding, this is miles away from the real direction you have to go towards Strong AI. It doesn't seem many well funded/popularized groups understand this thus will ultimately end up fooling themselves. Point out this truth and you get down votes. Essentially the broader community plugging their ears which is why a large number of these efforts are due for a significant failure.

Inferiority nor superiority was argued. So, quite frankly, this doesn't fall into this category. You can admit to a difference without falling privy to pseudo-science. Men and women's brains are structurally and chemically different as is each individual's unique brain. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that this manifests itself in real-world observable differences.

Misapplying a wikipedia link brings zero support to the parent comment. It possibly demonstrates that you have no truthful, factual, or logically sound arguments against the facts/science that have been stated thus can only resort to demonization .. Aka trying to thinly imply what has been presented is scientific racism.

I'm African American and I'd hire this guy in a minute. Why? because I can be assured that he is capable of sound root cause analysis and wont hold back his tongue w.r.t to presenting his findings... Even if the document was 100% about the inadequacies of African Americans, Id still give him the opportunity to debate and highlight his supporting data/arguments. This is not grounds to be fired. This is grounds for a promotion.

This is invaluable in engineering... The fact that company's in the valley have grown so high and mighty that they feel that such people are dispensable is a clear sign to me that the current tech giants have no place in the future of technology that is set to unfold... As such, the problem quite clearly will resolve itself.

Good luck discovering and developing the future of technology when you can't stomach viewpoints beyond the least common denominator social consensus.... I'm so glad I ignored google's attempts to recruit me as a quota hire... which is a whole other discussion on its own (hiring minorities for market/social currency and to pad your statistics while throwing them into b.s roles that don't allow them to develop further). I went through enough of that crap in my internships. Ironically,many times I was overqualified yet constantly was looked at and treated like the dumb minority who is there to fill a seat.

The problem and wrong minded culture that select people have embarked and forced on society is clearly going to fix (sink) itself.

Please define what's Regressive about plain facts...

> it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this

The prevailing (cultural) attitude is clearly against plain facts. The question should be why the prevailing attitude is against facts and real solutions but embraces lies and bad solutions. That is what is getting to intelligent people no matter their sphere.

> If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause

It's not an argument that women's brains are structural and chemically different than a male's brain. Also, there are time tested (1000s of years of history) of observations as to what these differences (generally) manifest in. This is also not an argument.

> then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there

Socially, you can do whatever you want. However, each such action caries consequences. A company that silences inconvenient truths and doesn't promote those capable of root cause analysis but instead promotes group think centered on flawed thinking and those that skirt around root causes will face the consequences of such a decision. As far as I'm concerned, it's a self-correcting problem. There are plenty of giant corporations in history that are no longer known for similar such missteps.

The rest of your post is filled with hand waiving and appeal to extremes. One group is presenting facts backed by sound logic and science you're resorting to demonization, appeal to extremes, and asserting intelligent people are incapable of philosophical/humanistic conjectures whereas observation proves the exact opposite. What's isn't the scope of a non-intelligent uninformed person is any higher minded thinking or analysis yet they feel the need to constantly interject their half witted opinion into matters and strong arm intelligent people's more accurate and thought out commentary. In the age of intelligence, it will be the half witted opinions that get disposed of and the opinions of entities in support of it and for good reason so that we can truly explore our humanity and our reach without being stunted by those who seek to hold back the truth or progress that can be made embracing it.

Why is there such low activity on this thread vs the OpenAI thread?

Does OpenAI Universe communicate in any way with OpenAI remotely regarding activity in OpenAI Universe? Essentially, are there any call-home aspects to the code base? Or, is it possible to run this locally without any outside communication?

If there is remote communication, can you detail why and where it exists in code?