= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CannibalSmith comments on Open Thread: December 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (263)
That's disheartening, but do give more evidence. To counter: participants of DARPA's Grand Challenge had just a year too, and their task was a notch harder. And they did use machine learning and other fun stuff.
Also, I think a modern gaming PC packs a hell of a punch. Especially with the new graphics cards that can run arbitrary code. But good catch - I'll inquire about the specs of the machines the competition will be held on.
The Grand Challenge teams didn't go from zero to victory in one year. They also weren't one-man efforts.
That having been said, and this is a reply to RobinZ also, for more specifics you really want to talk to someone who has written a real-time strategy game AI, or at least worked in the games industry. I recommend doing a search for articles or blog posts written by people with such experience. I also recommend getting hold of some existing game AI code to look at. (You won't be copying the code, but just to get a feel for how things are done.) Not chess or Go, those use completely different techniques. Real-time strategy games would be ideal, but failing that, first-person shooters or turn-based strategy games - I know there are several of the latter at least available as open source.
Oh, and Johnicholas gives good advice, it's worth following.
Stanford's team did.
Neither is mine.
I do not believe I can learn much from existing RTS AIs because their goal is entertaining the player instead of winning. In fact, I've never met an AI that I can't beat after a few days of practice. They're all the same: build a base and repeatedly throw groups of units at the enemy's defensive line until run out of resources, mindlessly following the same predictable route each time. This is true for all of Command & Conquer series, all of Age of Empires series, all of Warcraft series, and StarCraft too. And those are the best RTS games in the world with the biggest budgets and development teams.
But I will search around.
Was these games' development objective to make the best AI they could that would win in all scenarios? I doubt that would be the most fun for human players to play against. Maybe humans wanted a predictable opponent.
They want a fun opponent.
In games with many players (where alliances are allowed), you could make the AI's more likely to ally with each other and to gang up on the human player. This could make an 8-player game nearly impossible. But the goal is not to beat the human. The goal is for the AI to feel real (human), and be fun.
As you point out, the goal in this contest is very different.
Ah, I had assumed they must have been working on the problem before the first one, but their webpage confirms your statement here. I stand corrected!
Good, that will help.
Yeah. Personally I never found that very entertaining :-) If you can write one that does better, maybe the industry might sit up and take notice. Best of luck with the project, and let us know how it turns out.
Please fix this post's formatting. I beg you.
What's the recommended way to format quoted fragments on this site to distinguish them from one's own text? I tried copy pasting CannibalSmith's comment, but that copied as indentation with four spaces, which when I used it, gave a different result.
Click on the reply button and then click the help link in the bottom right corner. It explains how to properly format your comments.
Okay, thanks, fixed.