You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

richard_reitz comments on After Go, what games should be next for DeepMind? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: InquilineKea 10 March 2016 08:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (73)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: richard_reitz 10 March 2016 11:03:32PM *  4 points [-]

And yet, humans currently have the edge in Brood War. Humans are probably doomed once StarCraft AIs get AlphaGo-level decision-making, but flawless micro—even on top of flawless* macro—won't help you if you only have zealots when your opponent does a muta switch. (Zealots can only attack ground and mutalisks fly, so zealots can't attack mutalisks; mutalisks are also faster than zealots.)

*By flawless, I mean macro doesn't falter because of micro elsewhere; often, even at the highest levels, players won't build new units because they're too busy controlling a big engagement or heavily multitasking (dropping at one point, defending a poke elsewhere, etc). If you look at it broadly, making the correct units is part of macro, but that's not what I'm talking about when I say flawless macro.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 11 March 2016 08:45:14AM *  2 points [-]

Zealots/muta/dragoons/Hydralisks is just a standard rock/paper/scissors game theory thing, and it shouldn't be too hard to calculate an approximate nash equlibrium. The problem is that there is micro, macro, game theory, imperfect information, and an AI has to tie all these different aspects together (as well as perhaps some perceptual chunking to reduce the complexity) so its a real challange for combining different cognitive modules. This is too close to AGI for comfort IMO.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 11 March 2016 07:20:42PM 5 points [-]

This is too close to AGI for comfort IMO.

Pretty sure it's still comfortably narrow AI. People used to think that chess required AGI-levels of intelligence, too.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 March 2016 03:32:44PM -1 points [-]

flawless micro ... won't help you if you only have zealots when your opponent does a muta switch

Nobody said that flawless micro is sufficient and figuring out the rock/paper/scissors dynamic is not hard. Plus, given that it has enough "attention" for everything, an AI is likely to keep a dancing scout or two around the enemy base and see those mutalisks early enough.