Comment by rekrul on "AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II", DeepMind [won 10 of 11 games against human pros] · 2019-01-29T17:20:16.502Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

That's a fair point, but I don't think you need to have a livestreamed event to gain access to professional Starcraft players beyond consultation. I'm sure many would be willing to be flown to DeepMind HQ and test AlphaStar in private.

Comment by rekrul on "AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II", DeepMind [won 10 of 11 games against human pros] · 2019-01-29T05:30:26.536Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The "it" I was referring to were these showmatches, I worded that poorly my bad. I just don't see the point in having these uneven premature showmatches, instead of doing the extra work (which might be a lot) and then having fair showmatches. All the current ones have brought is confusion, and people distrusting Deepmind (due to misleading comments/graphs), and whenever they do finally get it right, it won't get the same buzz as before, because the media and general public will think it's old news that's already been done. Having them now instead of later just seems like a bad idea all around.

Comment by rekrul on [Link] Did AlphaStar just click faster? · 2019-01-29T05:22:09.624Z · score: 6 (4 votes) · LW · GW

There were definitely some complaints around OAI5's capabilities. Besides criticism over it's superhuman reaction speed, the restrictions placed upon the game to allow the AI to learn it essentially formed it's own weird meta the humans were unfamiliar with, so the AI was using tactics built for an entirely different game than the humans.

Honestly, I haven't been very impressed with either AI through these showmatches, because it's so hard to tell what their "intelligence" level is, as it's influenced heavily by their unfair capabilities. They need to both put a lot more effort into limiting their AI's inherent and unfair advantages, and other companies who want to try their hand at getting their AI to conquer a video game need to not repeat these disappointing showmatches.

Comment by rekrul on "AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II", DeepMind [won 10 of 11 games against human pros] · 2019-01-25T05:16:07.592Z · score: 5 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I'm a relative layperson, so I honestly don't know. Maybe no new tricks are needed. But if that's the case, why not just do it and not have all this confusion flying about?

These big uneven showmatches do a very poor job of highlighting the state of the art in Ai tactics, as the tactics the AI use seem to be heavily influenced by it's "unfair" capabilities. I can't really tell if these agents are generally smart enough to play at the full game evenly but use unfair strategies because they're allowed to, or if they're dumber agents who couldn't play the full game evenly so they're propped up by their unfair capabilities and earn victories by exploiting them.

Comment by rekrul on "AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II", DeepMind [won 10 of 11 games against human pros] · 2019-01-25T03:08:06.789Z · score: 7 (7 votes) · LW · GW

After both Dota and this, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that video games are a poorer testbed for examining the "thinking" capabilities of modern AI. Unless a substantial amount of effort is put in to restrict the AI to being roughly equal "physically" to humans, it becomes very difficult to determine how much of the AI's victories were due to "thinking" or due to being so "physically" superior it pulls off moves humans are simply incapable of doing even if they thought of them (or having other advantages like being able to see all of the visible map at the same time). Board games didn't really have that "physical" problem, but unfortunately we're all out of those.

As such gauging exactly how "smart" these video game AI's like OAI5 and AlphaStar are is kinda difficult to do.

Comment by rekrul on Electrons don’t think (or suffer) · 2019-01-04T10:17:36.083Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Even if something like an electron has some weird degraded form of consciousness, I don't see why I should worry about it suffering. It doesn't feel physical pain or emotional pain, because it lacks physical processes for both of them, and any talk of it having "goals" and it failing to reach them means it suffers just reeks of anthropomorphism. I just don't buy it.

Comment by rekrul on Reinterpreting "AI and Compute" · 2018-12-27T00:06:39.173Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I agree that researchers can take shortcuts and develop tricks, but I don't see how that shortens it to something as incredibly short as 1 year, especially since we will be starting with parts that are far worse than their equivalent in the human brain.

Comment by rekrul on Reinterpreting "AI and Compute" · 2018-12-26T23:01:06.720Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

"We could assume—by analogy with human brain training in childhood—that to train one model of human mind, at least 1 year of training time is needed (if the computer is running on the same speed as human mind)."

Could you clarify here? I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure human brains in childhood take a lot longer than a year to learn everything they need to survive and thrive in the real world. And they have a lot more going for them than anything we'll build for the foreseeable future (better learning algorithm, better architecture built by evolution, etc.)