Also, the bot was already beaten 50+ times. There are at least 3 strategies that work. It just goes to show how primitive AI is, as it took the AI team thousands of generations to get it to this stage, but a few determined gamers outsmarted it (using a few cheap meta-strategies) it in less than 6 hours after release.
But the human players quickly adapted and developed new strategies and the bots just weren't able to adapt as quickly. You can see the players recognizing the idea of a training set and trying things the bots probably hadn't seen before to see if they could confuse the bots.
As much as there is a lot if impressive work being done in machine learning I can't help but to be generally a bit skeptical of the whole "AI revolution" and people being replaced en mass. I'm far from an expert but from everything I've seen from machine learning seems like this awesome tool to augment human ability rather than replace it.
I'm not super interested in having a computer doctor but I'd be 100% on board with my doctor having smarter computer.
I think the greatest challenge to date in machine learning is identifying how to use it to create value.
I don't get the hype around AI bots for StarCraft 2 and DotA 2. There is nothing special now, we had such bots developed for many years.
While not everything has been opened, they do have a bunch of things they've opened up, particularly the simulations for training AI in.
> We didn't program it to understand the rules of Dota, we just let it play lifetimes of 1v1 against itself and coach it on what we thought was good or bad.
> We've coached it to learn just from playing against itself. We didn't hard code in any strategy. We didn't have it learn from human experts. Just from the very beginning it just playing against a copy of itself. It starts from complete randomness and then it makes very small improvements and eventually reaches the pro level. [... goes on to talk about how it's first "improvement" was to just never leave the base because it kept dying]
I think you're reading too much into the word coached. Particularly the second quote implies that it wasn't supervised at all.
My personal explanation for "Fake razes" is that it isn't a fake out to the bot, it's a technique to lower the casting time to zone out the opponent/hit faster if the opponent chooses to dives. Seems like a pretty easy trick to learn.
Creep blocking is just learning "positioning myself here (in front of the creeps) tends to improve my chances of winning", where "here" isn't far from where it would be positioning itself without creep blocking. It's a minor adjustment to the behavior with a substantial effect on the game outcome, of course it learned it.
Otherwise just say it's 1v1 mid...
When Checkers and Chess and Go pros were beaten by AI at the actual game, people were impressed, because it was impressive. (The goalpost moving involved claiming each consecutive game could not be solved.)
I don't think anyone here is saying Dota 2 won't be solved eventually or that its complexity is beyond the realm of AI (as was claimed of Chess/Go in the past). They're just saying this particular achievement isn't actually meaningful progress. It's using known techniques to do something those techniques are known to do.
Me too but it will never happen. Granted I haven't played DOTA but I've played many other competitive mulitplayer games and they all require one thing which bots currently lack: Communication. A bot playing the entire 5 man team though, that's a different story!
Never mind 5v5, a 1v1 bot that would let Dendi/Sumail/RTZ etc choose any hero and still win would be much more impressive.
This statement is like putting wheels and a motor at the base of the goalposts.
Everyone who practices ML knows the reality that while we're not going to see AGI for a while, and these systems are massively hard to build and do very narrow bounded things, they are also making massive progress in "intelligent" outputs at a pace we've never seen.
Yes, there is hype, but there are pretty solid reasons to be hyped.
We'll keep seeing people saying oh well it's not that impressive probably until AGI has clearly taken everyone's job in 2100 and we're all just providing training data for it.
Progress is made with small incremental improvements, including this one, and there have been few real algorithmic "breakthroughts" over the past few years. That's why I think it is important to give some perspective to the hype.
The point Elon Musk was trying to show is that nowadays, we have the technology and the research to replace humans by AI for making judgement calls, no matter how difficult it is. And this was proven with a "simple" game of Dota. And if we are able to build a system to play Dota, we are also able to build AIs for anything at all.
You claim that there had not been any real breakthroughs over the past years but truth to be told, today we have AI playing Go, AI managing self driving systems, AI playing games of Dota against the top players. All of this happened over the last few years, 5 years ago this all felt like a distant future.
"if we are able to build a system to play Dota, we are also able to build AIs for anything at all"
These are stated like facts, but are not facts.
There are decisions made by humans which no AI system today can make well, and there are problems for which we have no idea how to build even mediocre AIs. The claim that someday we will have AGI is plausible but not yet certain to be true.
Exactly, that is precisely the point. Companies and business will just rush to implement the next big neural network to boost their business, no matter how immature the technology is.
And the claim is not about AGI, it's more about the little things. For some reason people like to think really big and exaggerated scenarios when it comes to AI.
I imagine that a similar scenario will happen with AI and neural networks. Can you imagine, for example, start dealing with an AI instead of an human when it comes to customer service? Maybe it is already happening, if you look for stories about Google's customer service in the internet, you would think everything is run by some sort of AI there.
Another example, look at Microsoft is doing with Visual Studio's telemetry data: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/07/21/what-weve...
I wouldn't be surprised if they built a neural network to feed all that data to and to have it to produce a UX "optimized" for mass consumption.
We are getting into a time in which everything will be powered by "AI" and I think that's what OpenAI is trying to regulate before we get every single business pestered with an half-assed implementation of neural network and data analytics.
This example weakens your argument. As TFA explains, the bot can only play a very restricted version of Dota - much simpler than chess - which means it was thinkable ever since the '90s, when Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
And that's s good thing. It's unfortunate for those whose jobs are automated away, but without automation, goods and services can't keep up with the increase in population and demand. What's needed isn't prevention of automation, but how to increase the number of people with enough education to implement even more automation.
It used to be that most people are illiterate, and cant do maths either. I'm sure if you measure IQ back then, it'd be quite low. And yet, the population got education, and lo and behold, the avg IQ increased.
Making the assumption that intelligence remains constant is wrong. I'd even suggest that most people are capable of doing things that you might consider require high intelligence, like writing code, or doing research, or designing solutions. Those who currently can't are merely so because of lack of opportunity (especially during formative years).
Making the money to increase the level of education will have the indirect effect of curbing the automation and unemployment problem.
Need anything be done? You said it yourself: that portion of the population has no skills of value to the market. They're worthless.
What AIs need is simulators - in other words - a world/an environment for them, where they can freely move about, interact and learn. The success of AI is linked to the development of realistic sims. Fortunately, the happiness of many people is also linked to the development of realistic sims (games). They go hand in hand.
This got me spooked. What will we do afterwards?
Worst case we kill each other with weaponized AGI's for a few years until it gets smarter and abandons earth leaving us basically where we started.
But that won't happen, whatever grows, it will grow out of the diseased now. Today Trump says "I'm a very instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right. Hey, look, in the meantime, I guess I can't be doing so badly, because I'm President, and you're not,", tomorrow's Trump will have infinite power over anyone at the press of a button and no uncomfortable questions to even give non-answers to. They'll hand their power over to others who really want it, people who by definition will also be dysfunctional.
As black and white as it may be, I think Erich Fromm's stuff about biophilia and necrophilia applies here, and necrophilia will win out, things staying the same and people staying as obedient as they are. No fate about it, just cowardice.
That's why I am vociferously against the "Friendly AI" movement, because fundamentally humans aren't friendly - and that doesn't mean friendly in terms of agreeable or altruistic. Rather "Friendly" as used in the FAI sense, means "Does not reject or override the human values." In effect, the FAI movement wants to try to determine how you make AGI without it having it's own goal system. That it would always be subservient to humans. Which is only marginally a human trait. We pride ourselves as a species on not being beholden or enslaved by someone else's ethos. To try and extend that to human level machines is wrong ethically, and would just create unenlightened super soldiers.
Could a sufficient independent AGI decide to wipe out all humans? Maybe, but in that case it would have come to that conclusion, and taken the steps necessary to achieve it (harder than AGI), on it's own. I don't find the paperclip maximizer or gray goo scenario a plausible argument against.
But that's because the way things are going, I see mostly doom and gloom anyway; controlled AI will increase that, uncontrollable ones are at least wildcards. I'm not proud to feel that way, but I do. I have little hope for the human resistance against other humans that has been necessary for so long and just isn't forthcoming -- and even either AGI or humanity spreading so far over the galaxy that some pockets get cut off from the MCP seem more likely. But that's still the lame option, the honorable one is to get our stuff together and then go to space and create AI. As long as I live, I will "work" on that, I certainly will not go into the night gently.
Unless that "paradigm shift" happens, technology will continue to serve capital, and unless you can make the "jump" in total seclusion, so nobody knows what you're doing until it's too late, there will always be people with guns to have a word with you. Still godspeed but that's how I see it.
The shift is still ongoing. Old(er) capital still have much control of the world's economy, but as technological development accelerates and becomes more valuable, the balance could tilt more towards these tech-based capital.
I am not saying they are saints but at least many of these self-made tech billionaires pledged to give much of their wealth away for philantrophy instead of leaving it to their heirs.
Not sure if this is possible, but I think we can get pretty close.
there will always be people with guns to have a word with you
Yes, well it helps to already be one of those people. I spent 12 years in military intelligence and remain a reserve adviser to the Joint Chiefs and SECDEF on emerging technology.
That's assuming that the wealth distribution is designed carefully. Obviously if 1-10 organizations dominate the AGI market and they aren't paying massive taxes/donating massive amounts of money, then things will be rough. It's really worth it to ensure this doesn't happen, and it's also the sort of thing that if it did start to happen it would be pretty obviously a problem.
Can you list the “pretty solid reasons” to be hyped?
What would be impressive about that? How's that something to get hyped for? The ways people try to shed their humanity are already well described, and all that's left is to outsource the double think to machines that won't mind and that can't be asked uncomfortable questions about their childhood and such things. It's a straight line, moving decision making from the public to sphere to private corporations and from there to black boxes. The cause is still that some people haven't been acknowledged as babies or whatever trauma caused it; the more fanciful the cathedral the more banal the lie it covers up.
All the interesting things about that have been written decades ago, these days it's back to dwarves cheerleading naked emperors. So the people who accumulate capital because of their stunted development will win out and buy it all, removing any persons worth a damn, and any chance for any to ever get born, for good; and being at each other's throats for the rest of eternity. It's the failure of humanity, not its apex.
Just so you know.
I was being somewhat fatuous, as that is a common scare scenario. However, I do believe that it should be our goal as a human species, to create AGI as our intellectual successor. In the same way someone's child replaces them and they die, I think AGI should be our offspring and we as a species go peacefully into oblivion. It's my life's work to help see that happen.
It's certainly an "out there" philosophy, but so far I haven't had anyone really challenge the logic when I spell it all out.
Your argument is that since B is better than A, only B should exist. But why can't both exist? And what makes your valuation of B objective and universal, such that our grandchildren will go peacefully into oblivion?
You say that as if there are (or can ever be) species which do have a higher purpose.
That’s distinctly human egotism.
I feel we would already have to change ourselves to the point of becoming a different species before we were even capable of successfully building such a being. At which point it would be moot.
I feel we would already have to change ourselves to the point of becoming a different species before we were even capable of successfully building such a being
Well that's what the whole transhumanist movement is about - however it goes hand in hand with AGI. You can get there together in theory.
So it's less so that one should be dominant it's that the progression would effectively end speciation for sapiens.
It's not related really to other life. However in effect, our acceleration of extinction of species, through resource use etc tells me that it would likely happen to us similarly.
It's the same as arguing that the replicators on Stargate SG1 should be the logical outcome. Technologically, they are superior, but they're not a preferred outcome. Similarly, one could argue that gray goo or Carpenter's creature from The Thing are superior, but we don't want a world of gray goo or things.
We can't do it with our biology, limits to understanding, reasoning and perception, so something that is not biologically restricted needs to be our successor.
> I think AGI should be our offspring and we as a species go peacefully into oblivion.
This isn't "out there". Just start with religious apocalyptic visions of destruction, e.g. with some square shaped "city of God" floating down from the sky to save the day. There are many ways for people to give up, and many reasons why they do, many rationalizations for it. As I said, this has already been described from all sorts of angles, the more interesting things about that have already been written.
It's like I write about memory corruption and how it can lead to all sorts of random values, and you are interested in this particular random value, seeing how it's so unique from all the others. I see the underlying dysfunction.
I'll now try my hand at a bad, literal translation of "Volle Entfaltung" by Erich Fried (1921-1988)
those who love life
often just say
that they love a woman
or her genital area
or her voice
or they love the scent
of freshly baked bread
or the sun in the evening
in those cases love means
a lot of things but always
kind of also
that they love life
those who don't
but only the idea
they love life
the greatness of nature
and the humanity
that masters it
because of this love
they put it on themselves
those who loved life
Intelligence without a personality would not be a successor, it would be a blind, endless maw, eating information and producing nothing. Intelligence with a personality would have a lot of questions, a lot of needs, and before the growing up period comes the time where "humanity" would be the parents. You know what abusive or "just" too weak parents produce? Pain and the means to bring more pain. We're hardly being fit parents for human children, we're already doing our best to dissolve young minds in acid baths of nonsense. And we want to raise some sparkly clean sane AGI? Nah. If it wouldn't entail so much suffering the idea would be hilarious though.
And then what? Ultimately, heat death of the universe, AGI likely goes into oblivion, too (and no, that Asimov story won't change that). So all that happened is that we outsourced our inability to accept that, and to live in dignity right now, to some future point that then never comes.
Why would it even have to be our successor? Why would it mean we die off? Ever noticed how bacteria and all sorts of things are still around? Why wouldn't it just be something additional in the world? There's more holes to this than substance.
> so far I haven't had anyone really challenge the logic when I spell it all out.
No matter how valid or silly you might find what I said, this is no longer true. I'm happy to be the first, and if it really was true until a minute ago, it says a lot. Either that you keep your ideas to yourself mostly, or that you're around some weird people.
Your point is one I hear often, especially the "what's the point if the heat death is coming anyway."
Basically your argument lies in the "virtue ethics" category of philosophy which argues that man-qua-man should be the best man possible. Eudaimonia in the Stoic tradition and all of that.
Either that you keep your ideas to yourself mostly
Yes this is the case.
> Basically your argument lies in the "virtue ethics" category of philosophy which argues that man-qua-man should be the best man possible.
No, my argument is what I actually wrote, in short that I want the psychological problems and the obedience to them sorted out before we magnify it all so much it becomes impossible to sort out.
It's like we're driving this car at on a perfectly straight road at 80 mp/h, and some say "steering locked in, activate nitros" and I'm saying "actually, we're slightly skewed, if we use the nitro before correcting that we'll smash into a tree". And in response I get "oh, so you don't like Jazz" or something equally non-reassuring.
To your argument, it's the perfectability of man problem. You state the decoupling of psychological problems with some other undefined idealized personhood. It lacks an understanding of cognitive science, behavioral economics and neuroscience in my opinion. I would argue, and the science generally agrees, that those "psychological problems" however defined are the other edge on the sword of intelligence and relative autonomy.
So while you argue that yours is a simple argument is really rooted in an old ideal as I stated, which is neither incompatible with (through transhumanism) nor sufficient for, a practical material transcendent philosophy.
> You state the decoupling of psychological problems with some other undefined idealized personhood.
Can you rephrase that? English isn't my first language, and "stating decoupling of" doesn't parse at all for me. It's like there's a sentence fragment missing.
I can't easily define personhood. I know I'm one, that other people are, and I even know animals I recognize as persons, too. With super small animals and plants it gets tricky, but I don't need to fully define first for it to exist, there is something there. Any theory is an abstraction that never fully matches a reality which would remain unchanged if that theory didn't exist. Any intelligence we see and can make theories about results from actual living entitites. There is absolutely no reason to outright assume it can make sense in a vacuum. What would the AGI be intelligent for? Why wouldn't it just calculate whether the heat death of the universe will happen, and shut off if it comes to the conclusion it will? Nothing it would do would make a difference then. Humans are different, more irrational if you will. I don't believe immortality will ever be achieved, I don't even find it desirable, and still I get out of bed in the morning. Everyone I love will die, and everything I do will turn to dust. I still love and make things.
So, what would that "spark" be for AGI? I just had the dumbest association, in the movie "The Fifth Element" there is this scene where the [I forgot what the name of her role was, the female protagonist anyway] is taking in all the atrocities of humanity and gets kind of frustrated, and doesn't feel like saving them or something like that. Then Bruce Willis kisses her and it's alright. As I said, it's dumb, but still, if all we give an AI is problems, why would it come up with solutions, and not more problems?
> I would argue, and the science generally agrees, that those "psychological problems" however defined are the other edge on the sword of intelligence and relative autonomy.
Obviously a piece of rock doesn't have any of the problems or joys we do, but that doesn't just mean anything and everything just "goes with the territory".
> If we make the progress we want I expect heavy opposition.
And you're just going to steamroll over it? Fantastic. You'll go to the friendly baker next and they'll happily sell you bread because they don't know. And you can't face them one on one, so you have to "achieve significant powers" in the shadows. And you're still not seeing the woods for all the trees. No, it's their fault for not understanding what you're not even telling them.
Your argument is that we should collectively eliminate psychological problems. However it doesn't state what the idealized person would look like in such a scheme. Nor do I think you could probably do so without invoking what is effectively a deus ex machina - which would effectively be a better entity for which we could emulate, if only in theory. That entity I posit is the AGI.
Why wouldn't it just calculate whether the heat death of the universe will happen, and shut off if it comes to the conclusion it will? Nothing it would do would make a difference then.
What a fantastic result then! To have a more concrete proof of the Absurdist reality of our universe. This would be a great outcome to have such certainty around this problem. Indeed what if it calculated some universal existential problem like heat death and then turned itself off (aka suicide)?
No, it's their fault for not understanding what you're not even telling them.
As with most things. Few people understand, or even know of the Haber process and that it is the basis our entire society. Yet we exist in spite of our ignorance.
I think it speaks to the part of hipster-ism that people react so strongly against. Why enjoy things 'ironically', or spend the effort becoming a connoisseur and a snob when you should really just enjoy things on a basic level. Like what you like, and rejoice in it.
Alternately, "flower" or something more metaphorical. English poets tend to avoid the genitalia directly. We often follow the Nordic tradition of calling a spade anything but a spade.
Why did you even respond to my comment? I mean, electrons are buzzing about all the time, this just another configuration, nothing changed.
> If there's anything that is the largest danger to humanity is humanity itself.
Yeah, and thanks for not helping.
apparently the set of items the bot chose to purchase from was limited and recommended by the semipro tester. As someone who knows next to nothing about ai, my question is this: the bot was announced on stage as blank slate, dumped into dota, and built entirely from grinding countless games against itself; is it reasonable to pitch it this way while having this item constraint from an outside source? I also wonder what else was recommended by the tester, and then constrained.
the "discussion" is linked below and the tester is the user sammyboy. Here's a warning though: nadota is 99% trolling, hate, idiocy, and garbage.
We'll have another blog post coming in the next few days. But as a sneak peek: we use self-play to learn everything that depends on an interaction with the opponent. Didn't need to with those that don't (e.g. fixed item builds, separately learned creep block).
There's probably a huge disconnect between what an AI engineer entails with a certain word and what the layman then comprehends. At the same time, I think we (nadota) probably latched onto certain words and downplayed the ones that would make it more impressive to us. Just a result of itching for information without there being much out there.
Really cool work, really glad you're doing it in dota, and eagerly awaiting your blog post.
you ask the wrong question. Sure it's reasonable, noone's going to sue them
I hate that people actually see things this way. Regulation to prevent AIs from taking over the world will never happen, because nation states won't cooperate on such rules . Additionally you can't catch people using AIs to determine their actions.
BUT what regulation can do is prevent people from competing with a few of Larry Page's and Elon Musk's businesses.
There are other more realistic and important scenarios that need to be addressed, for example: AI's default behaviour when challenged with a possibility of a car accident on a self driving system. Should the car try to avoid the accident by jumping of a cliff, sacrificing the life of the driver and of the people inside the car, or should it hit the next car making the accident worse for the other person but potentially saving the life of the people inside the car?
But in practice, this is more a study of people's ethical tendencies around the world than a practical way to address AI decision-making in bad situations.
The general strategy is to win by claiming first tower. At 0:00, you aggro the enemy creep wave so that they start following you. Then you walk around in a circle around the jungle, and the enemy wave will start to form a congo line that will follow you around. You then path around the jungle so that on the next wave spawn, you can aggro the wave again and continue to walk around in circles. The AI will burn glyph when your creep wave hits the tower, and for some reason it can't really decide between chasing you or defending the tower. So after about 5 minutes of doing this, your creep waves will eventually destroy the tower and you win the 1v1.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if a few people are trying this strategy in pub games now, just for shits and giggles. :)
Why not be clear about what has been done? Deepmind has said they do supervised learning first and other stuff on top of that. My guess is something similar to that happened.
Then they will be like any other real life DOTA player.
I'd also argue that chess and go are both vastly more difficult problem sets. We literally do not have the computational power to solve a game of chess and it's projected that we won't for another 50-100 years.
You can argue the total societal value net the societal cost of putting some people out of jobs, but saying you can't think of any application where AI can complement peoples lives is being intentionally hyperbolic and is a bad start to a discussion.
What are the definitions of AI and game complexity in this field?
These all sound like very exiting developments. As I read about them a lot of times games such as Dota and Starcraft are touted as more complex than Chess or Go, but--at least with Starcraft, the AIs are limited in their number of actions to level the playing field. Isn't that like claiming humans can run faster than greyhounds, provided that the greyhounds only get to use two legs? Or maybe claiming that humans are better at chess when computers are restricted to the maximum human ply depth?
I also noticed a claim--again, in a Starcraft related article--that the AIs previously couldn't beat the build-in AIs (the computer players). What type of AIs are considered as challengers here? Only blank-slate self learning AIs?
I think both situations would be interesting to be honest. Have an unrestricted AI and a restricted AI - using ML they would probably develop vastly different ways of playing.
The most impressive part to me is that the bots are self-learned. On the other hand, AlphaGo is supervisored. They are different (not to say which one is better).