Java Program Uses Neural Networks To Monitor Games 100
tr0p writes "Java developers have used the open source Neuroph neural network framework to monitor video game players while they play and then provide helpful situational awareness, such as audio queues when a power-up is ready or on-the-fly macros for combo attacks. The developers have published an article describing many of the technical details of their implementation. 'There are two different types of neural networks used by DotA AutoScript. The first type is a simple binary image classifier. It uses Neuroph's "Multi-Layer Perceptron" class to model a neural network with an input neurons layer, one hidden neurons layer, and an output neurons layer. Exposing an image to the input layer neurons causes the output layer neurons to produce the probability of a match for each of the images it has been trained to identify; one trained image per output neuron.'"
Hilarious Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
So they designed and wrote a neural network for the sole purpose of identifying a limited set of icons? Seriously?
They could have done this using conventional methods that would be significantly faster. Me thinks someone was just doing this for entertainment.
Re:Hilarious Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
multi resolution analysis perhaps? an example of this method is wavelet decomposition.
Which is even more processor-intensive than a moderately sized neural net.
Re:Hilarious Overkill (Score:3, Insightful)
So they designed and wrote a neural network for the sole purpose of identifying a limited set of icons? Seriously?
They used a library. And it's just an algorithm.
Re:How about NO image recognition? (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who's been writing external trainers for games for years (though admittedly it was some years ago), I can assure you first hand that accessing a game's internal data structures is indeed very possible.
And even if I couldn't find that boolean, I'd at least try to hook the point where it tries to draw that icon.
The idea of using image recognition on the screen is so horribly inefficient a method... I suppose it could be used if absolutely nothing else works, but really that's about it.
Re:Hilarious Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
IN JAVA. Speed was obviously not in the design criteria.
The '90s are over. Java is now one of the fastest languages around.
Re:Hilarious Overkill (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture [wikipedia.org] And that includes a few bilion ARM prosessors used in mobile phones. Sure they can run java, but it's nowhere near as fast as C.
Java is nice, but the 'runs everywhere' feature is the least interesting one of them all. I can run an emulated a full blown x86 on a 8bit microcontroller, but that does not make it useful.
Re:Hilarious Overkill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hilarious Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
Is your application CPU-limited?
No, it's developer-limited. For most applications, development time is a bigger issue than execution speed. Only for very heavily used low-level routines (OS stuff, graphics libraries, VMs, etc) is it really worthwhile spending extra effort on extreme optimisation.
If so, is it *the* fastest language?
I don't have any recent benchmarks, but I remember that back in the days of the Java 5 JVM, Java is about 10% slower than equivalent C++, which is pretty good. But since then, JVMs have gotten quite a bit faster. It would surprise me if Java was not on at least equal terms with C++ now, alhough highly optimised low-level C is still going to be faster. But that's also extremely tedious to code.
Those are the questions one should be asking when picking a programming language.
No, the main question you need to ask when picking a language is if your code is going to be maintainable, and how expensive you can afford your maintainance to be. That's still the main timesink in development.
If your application is limited by the CPU, only the fastest language, C, will do for some routines. You may even consider using assembly or machine-optimized code such as Atlas [sourceforge.net]
You accidentally hit the nail right on the head there: C is not necessarily the fastest language, highly optimised custom assembly is. And any language is only as fast as it can be if the programmer knows what he's doing. Some language do more for you to make optimal code easy to write than others.
Java development, in my experience, is more laborious than Python or Ruby. Unless you have big teams of developers who must work close together, I wouldn't recommend Java for anything.
Oh, I agree, Java stopped being an easy development language quite some time ago, and moved to the side of the fast execution languages. This is also why I switched from Java to Ruby. However, I just might switch to Scala because recent JVMs are so incredibly cool. The power of Java these days is more in the awesomeness of the JVM than in the language itself.
Even so, there is an enormous amount of support for Java. It is by far the biggest language for enterprisey server stuff. I think there are as many webframeworks for Java as there are for all other programming languages put together. This is one of the big stengths of Java, but at the same time, this architectural overload is also one of the major hurdles for starting in Java.
However, my point was that Java is pretty fast, which it is. If speed is an issue, Java can be an excellent choice (unlike Ruby, for example). If speed is the only thing that matters, then highly optimised C or assembly is really the only option.
Re:Cheating? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't play against jackasses. Makes public servers a bit harder to deal with, but it is an easy solution otherwise.