Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI Cloud Microsoft Games

Elon Musk + AI + Microsoft = Awesome Dota 2 Player (theverge.com) 106

An anonymous reader quotes the Verge: Tonight during Valve's yearly Dota 2 tournament, a surprise segment introduced what could be the best new player in the world -- a bot from Elon Musk-backed startup OpenAI. Engineers from the nonprofit say the bot learned enough to beat Dota 2 pros in just two weeks of real-time learning, though in that training period they say it amassed "lifetimes" of experience, likely using a neural network judging by the company's prior efforts. Musk is hailing the achievement as the first time artificial intelligence has been able to beat pros in competitive e-sports... Elon Musk founded OpenAI as a nonprofit venture to prevent AI from destroying the world -- something Musk has been beating the drum about for years.
"Nobody likes being regulated," Musk wrote on Twitter Friday, "but everything (cars, planes, food, drugs, etc) that's a danger to the public is regulated. AI should be too."

Musk also thanked Microsoft on Twitter "for use of their Azure cloud computing platform. This required massive processing power."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elon Musk + AI + Microsoft = Awesome Dota 2 Player

Comments Filter:
  • Not AI (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Saturday August 12, 2017 @03:56PM (#54999889) Homepage Journal
    Let me repeat: computers playing games is NOT AI. Computers love games. Games have strict rules and limited parameters. Computers love that. Computers excel at that. IT IS NOT AI.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      It is called "weak AI", which is the AI without intelligence. The term is basically a marketing lie and it would be fundamentally better not to call mindless automation like this "AI" at all.

      • Re:Not AI (Score:5, Insightful)

        by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Saturday August 12, 2017 @05:06PM (#55000195)
        It's no "weak AI". It's just AI. AI people can't be blamed for other people constantly moving goalposts ever since the thing was conceptualized half a century ago.
        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          You must be completely unaware of the actual research in this area.

          • How come? Have we moved significantly beyond the goal of "trying to get machines to exhibit behavior that we call intelligent when we observe it in human beings"? I haven't indeed noticed any massive progress beyond that having happened so far.
      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Don't be so wrapped up in mud monkey intelligence, it shows many examples of quite poor intelligence, pretty much billions of them as individuals and trillions upon trillions of poorly structured thought pattern cycles producing demonstrably negative rather than positive outcomes. AI is a collection of algorithmic structures doing their own thing whilst interacting with the output of other structures, the more processes going on in parrallel, the smarter it looks but each structure on it's own is really qui

    • Re:Not AI (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Saturday August 12, 2017 @04:27PM (#55000009)

      As game developers, we call our automated agents "AI" in a long tradition of overloading and bastardizing words from other fields, but we all understand it's not actually real "AI" of any sort. I mean, even pathfinding goes under the term "AI" for our purposes. So, yeah, this is deep learning, but no more "AI" than what we do inside the games. Very often, we actually have to work to make our opponents *less* effective, because computers have so many advantages over players, especially in any game at all where reflexes count, or broad analysis of lots of details is important.

      But more to the point, Elon keeps talking about regulating AI to prevent it from destroying the world. Every time he talks about this, he sounds like an unhinged lunatic that has some irrational fears about something he doesn't deeply understand. I still haven't heard a realistic scenario about how AI is going to go about doing this. And let's be honest... the perception of his capacity for rational thought on matters outside his domain of expertise was NOT helped by his declaration that he's 99.9% certain we're living in a computer simulation.

      Besides which, how exactly would one "regulate" this, short of simply banning AI development by private enterprises? Massive governmental oversight requiring a programmer to pinky swear or sign in blood that they'll use those neural networks for good instead of evil? I honestly don't get it.

      • Elon is trying to pretend like AI is a real thing in order to attract attention to his AI venture. It is just another VC play.
      • He's probably going to found a company that sells anti-AI tin-foil helmets, or something of that nature.

        This is the same type of FUD which AV companies have spreaded for years to sell their wares. Nothing to see here...
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Regulating AIs will probably be as easy as regulating anything else. Explosives aren't particularly hard to make, but it's certainly something regulated (thank goodness). AIs are probably harder to make, and we wont know exactly what regulations might be useful until we actually have something that we would actually consider intelligent. Some examples are not hard to come up with though: requiring kill switches, limiting CPU hours, limiting internet access, mandatory reporting, etc. I think speculating now

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        As game developers, we call our automated agents "AI" in a long tradition of overloading and bastardizing words from other fields, but we all understand it's not actually real "AI" of any sort. I mean, even pathfinding goes under the term "AI" for our purposes. So, yeah, this is deep learning, but no more "AI" than what we do inside the games. Very often, we actually have to work to make our opponents *less* effective, because computers have so many advantages over players, especially in any game at all where reflexes count, or broad analysis of lots of details is important.

        So to flip the board, is it fair to hamstring the AI because humans can't keep up? If we're not making a game for entertainment here, if the computer's AI drone pilots can decimate your fleet of human pilots why shouldn't it play to win? I don't mean to take the human factor out of it, but doesn't war often come down to arms and numbers? I doubt there was any true difference in the level of motivation for the Axis and the Allies, it was a war for survival. So from the computer's POV it's just playing an adv

        • if the computer's AI drone pilots can decimate your fleet of human pilots why shouldn't it play to win? I don't mean to take the human factor out of it, but doesn't war often come down to arms and numbers?

          Obviously you're not going to hold back your military AI, beyond what you're willing to permit it to commit. You're going to let it be brilliant, and you're going to keep it from turning on you with an extensive kill switch system. In a game, we want the AI to give us a challenge, not to crush us. Military conflict often comes down to intelligence, so that you can choose intelligent tactics. This is why bots actually built into video games have to be artificially restricted; they don't have to think about w

      • Read the book "Super Intelligence". It's a very dry exploration of the risks of A.I. along with ideas of how to mitigate them.

        And perhaps then you'll have heard some realistic scenario about how AI is going to go about doing this.

      • by mlyle ( 148697 )

        When we talk about strong AI, there's plenty of scary scenarios in the (not-near, but unclear how distant) future.

        https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wik... [lesswrong.com]

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Those are scenarios but they are not the least bit scary because of their absolute absurdity.
          But then again some lesswrong readers are frightened by the notion of roko's basilisk.

      • ... giving computers full tactical control of potentially dangerous equipment/systems. The game is changing, no matter what name it's given.

        It's not that the equipment is any different, nor that computers are already in the loop, nor even that software can be subverted, but that the job given to the computers is a whole level up in decision making.

        We've repeatedly seen what happens to a chat bot that is left to learn on its own. It has no compass and goes bizarre.

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        Asimovs rules are actually a good start. An agreed upon protocol that is part of every AI development. It could be as simple as having a mandatory "off" switch.

        Yes, there remains a risk of a rogue developer. This can be minimized by having those rules or emergency switches be in the libraries - most developers will not start an AI from scratch once basic functionality is available as a library. That would go a long distance to eliminate death-by-stupidity.

        For malicious players, I guess my profession (inform

      • But more to the point, Elon keeps talking about regulating AI to prevent it from destroying the world. Every time he talks about this, he sounds like an unhinged lunatic that has some irrational fears about something he doesn't deeply understand. I still haven't heard a realistic scenario about how AI is going to go about doing this.

        Step 0. Invent AI
        Step 1. Put AI in charge of everything.
        Step 2. AI uses everything to make lots of killbots and kills us all because we are meatbags taking up space, or it decides its primary mission is giant panda preservation or something. Humans go insane, why can't AI?

        We're not even through Step 0 yet, but once you have AI writing AI you will presumably see explosive progress which could lead to Step 1.

      • I expect automated agents to have access to knowledge that a typical user wouldn't have. After all, the automated agents are coded into the game. I'm surprised to learn automated agents had exactly the same inputs and outputs as a human player.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      IT IS NOT AI.

      It is an AI; an *artificial* intelligence. In other words, to a layman it might appear to be intelligent but it is not. To someone suitably versed in the subject, the artifice is apparent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Just because it's not strong AI doesn't mean it's not AI. And really, this new wave of machine learning is quite a bit more impressive than the "AI" of the 90s that conquered chess. There things were hard coded by humans and possible moves iterated. With this new machine learning AI is "learning" the parameters and rules without human input, just through reinforcement. This is why it is now being used for things like the game Go where iteration is essentially impossible.

    • Re:Not AI (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Saturday August 12, 2017 @08:09PM (#55000979)

      Decomposed to it's components, the brain is not intelligent.

      The Brain is composed of the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain.
      Alone, none of these are intelligent.

      The forebrain consists of the cerebrum, thalamus, and hypothalamus (part of the limbic system).
      None of these these three subcomponents are intelligent.

      The midbrain consists of the tectum and tegmentum.
      Neither of these pieces are intelligent.

      The hindbrain is made of the cerebellum, pons and medulla.
      None of these these three subcomponents are intelligent.

      People with dysfunctional Amygdala are incapable of logical thinking because they can't emotionally weight the factors correctly.. They find snakes interesting but not scary (so they want to touch them).

      Most people driving are not doing so intelligently. A minor "driving" expert system is running while their brain is elsewhere.

      Computers beating humans at go is weak A.I.

      We are 8 years ahead of the projected schedule for landmarks. It's going faster than we expected.

      ----

      We *must* be very careful with A.I. because we only get one shot at it. Any serious A.I. research must be done air gapped, with analog power meters, with fuse limited power suplies, and many other precautions.

      We have overconfident people playing with extinction level technology. It might never click. It might click 10 years from now. It might click tomorrow.

      • by Whibla ( 210729 )

        Wish I had mod points left!

        Having said that however, what amazes me about the entire subject is what no-one mentions: Responsibility.

        I'm not talking about responsible development of AI, I'm talking about our responsibilities to any true AI we create. If we have a child we, as parents, have a responsibility to feed it, nurture it, educate it, socialise it, and so on, at least until it becomes an adult in its own right (How we might decide this, for a new form of life is subject for another discussion). Surel

        • Well the good news for the nightmare scenarios is that even hyenas show tremendous empathy and warmth when socialized. They remain hyenas and could literally eat you alive (nasty habit/preference) but there are cool youtube videos of them acting sort of like cat/dogs with a guy who has been with them for 15 years.

          So A.I. might have empathy simply because it's a quality of being intelligent.

          But, it may also be as callous as any other animal (including humans) and rationalize its behavior and not feel any re

    • Let me repeat: computers playing games is NOT AI. Computers love games. Games have strict rules and limited parameters. Computers love that. Computers excel at that. IT IS NOT AI.

      Quite. A game is literally a set of rules. It's an abstraction. What's surprising is how long computers took to get good at some games, not that they did.

    • by Tom ( 822 )

      Book hint: "Finite and infinite games" by J.P. Carse.

      Short version: Everything is a game. Some games just have more complex rules than others, and some games have rules that change while you play (life is not the only such game, Nomic is a good example of a table game that does).

    • Let me repeat: computers playing games is NOT AI. Computers love games. Games have strict rules and limited parameters.

      like IRL physics?

    • And then someone out there says, "life is like a game".

      Time to welcome our new AI overlord.

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday August 12, 2017 @04:12PM (#54999951)

    ...I am beginning to ask myself, whether weak AI like this (no actual intelligence or understanding) may not actually be on-par with many humans, which fare not much better at understanding things.

    • I dunno... earlier today I heard an AI spouting off some anti-vaccination nonsense and talking about Making Dire Great Again.

  • by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Saturday August 12, 2017 @04:17PM (#54999977)
    Ok, Elon. How about if we start with "don't teach your AI that it's primary objective is to destroy every other creature on the map".
  • (multiplayer online battle game called...) Defense of the Ancients 2

    ... Because some of us aren't au fait with computer game trends but still want to understand the /. summary and linked article.
  • BILLIONAIRE Elon Musk has claimed that people should be more worried about Artificial Intelligence (AI) than the threat posed by North Korea. http://www.express.co.uk/news/... [express.co.uk]

    • by Tom ( 822 )

      But that's obvious to anyone with three working brain cells.

      North Korea is a non-issue. They make a big fuss every time they need some outside support to fend off some internal food shortage or whatever. And also, they're a tiny nation that would break down the same hour a war started.

      Their role in world politics is to be a distraction.

      • But that's obvious to anyone with three working brain cells.

        But unfortunately for all of us, the guy who decides such things only has 2...

        • by Tom ( 822 )

          You drink too much mainstream media bullshit.

          Trump is by far not as stupid as the persona he projects appears. There are some great videos on YouTube that analyse his speech patterns, and those patterns are not likely to be accidental. He plays dumb because it suits him. He's probably an egomaniac and a dozen other things, but stupid? Don't think so.

          • You drink too much mainstream media bullshit.

            Oh ok. Either that or I listen to the man himself...

            Trump is by far not as stupid as the persona he projects appears.

            Maybe not, but he's still stupid. We know he's stupid because his entire career has resulted in below average results compared to the market. And in the 7 months of being in office has achieved below average results when compared to his peers.
            But keep believing it's all an act if that makes you feel better...

            • by Tom ( 822 )

              Forbes estimated that Trump's net worth in 1988 was $1 billion, growing to about $4 billion in 2015 â" a comparatively meager 300% increase

              Sure "below average". I'm sure you don't want to switch places, right? Who'd want a puny 4 billion?

              But keep believing it's all an act if that makes you feel better...

              "all" is such a word. As I said: He's definitely not the most wholesome person, but if you think that he is as stupid as he seems on TV, he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

              But don't take it from me. You can also listen to, say, Bernie Sanders [politico.com].

              • Forbes estimated that Trump's net worth in 1988 was $1 billion, growing to about $4 billion in 2015 â" a comparatively meager 300% increase

                Sure "below average". I'm sure you don't want to switch places, right? Who'd want a puny 4 billion?

                The argument is not if you want more money, it's is a Donald Trump a below average performer. Your evidence makes answer that clear.

                But keep believing it's all an act if that makes you feel better...

                "all" is such a word. As I said: He's definitely not the most wholesome person, but if you think that he is as stupid as he seems on TV.

                Not as stupid, but still stupid as everything he's done in life demonstrates. Below average businessman, most incompetent President.

                • by Tom ( 822 )

                  Yes, he is a below average performer - and yet he grew his net worth by 300% in 30 years. That's 10% a year on average. Below average compared to other billionaires, but not exactly a shitty growth rate.

                  most incompetent President

                  Bush Jr. ?

                  Setting aside your personal preference, on which objective scale do you compare?

                  • most incompetent President

                    Bush Jr. ?

                    Setting aside your personal preference, on which objective scale do you compare?

                    Public perception
                    Legislation passed
                    Transparency and Accountability
                    Loyalty of closest associates
                    General confidence levels
                    International & domestic support
                    Support of your own party when you have majority in both houses
                    Ability to speak in coherent sentences
                    You name it, he does worse at it than any other President by a considerable margin. The simple fact that he makes GWB look extremely competent should be enough.

                    Conversely, what has he done that makes you think he's really an achiever in disguis

                    • by Tom ( 822 )

                      Conversely, what has he done that makes you think he's really an achiever in disguise?

                      You seem to think that anyone who doesn't shout "impeach him! impeach him!" is a fan who gets a hard-on at the thought of Trump looking at him.

                      I don't really care that much, except that I'm happy Hillary didn't win because I'm not much in the mood for another war with Russia.

                      I just believe that the media bias in reporting on Trump is very, very obvious and that the image transported is not the truth. That doesn't mean he's an achiever.

                      Let me put it in numbers. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say he's somewhere i

  • by Tom ( 822 )

    It was obvious that e-sports will be short-lived because bots are going to beat us all within a short time. Soon you'll be able to run them on your home machine and nobody will be the wiser. Anti-cheat mechanisms will work for a short time, and then go to the dustbin of history.

    But what I'd find even more interesting is the output of those learning algorithms. If it can amass lifetimes of experience, can it answer the question which heroes are over- or underpowered? All we'd need to check is its picking pre

    • by Whibla ( 210729 )

      can it answer the question which heroes are over- or underpowered?

      Assumption detected... ;-)

      In a game of rock paper scissors which hand sign is overpowered? It seems to me that it's this balance of power that the game devs are aiming for. Which then leads back to your question ... and, in fairness, your final point.

      It was obvious that e-sports will be short-lived because bots are going to beat us all within a short time

      Only if they're allowed to enter. Otherwise, sanitised computers with only the required software (i.e. the game in question) installed will ensure the competition is limited to the human participants you can see on the gaming stage. Online gaming, on the other

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        rock-paper-scissors is trivial to balance because it has a clear payoff matrix with one dimension.

        But once you have more complexity, can you say for sure that you have the correct weighting between, say, speed, offensive power and armor ? That is exactly what I'm getting at.

        Only if they're allowed to enter. Otherwise, sanitised computers with only the required software (i.e. the game in question) installed will ensure the competition is limited to the human participants you can see on the gaming stage

        For the tournament level that will work. But one level below, it already fails, the same way we don't do drug tests at little league games.

  • "Musk is hailing the achievement as the first time artificial intelligence has been able to beat pros in competitive e-sports"
    I've been playing multiplayer games for decades, and cheat bots have always been able to beat humans. There is no way you can compete with something that is programmed to headshot you the millisecond any pixel of your player appears in their field of view (which also happens to be 360 degrees all the time).
    Maybe this claim only applies to DOTA, because for any FPS this has always b
  • by bool2 ( 1782642 ) on Sunday August 13, 2017 @06:09AM (#55002287) Homepage
    I think the question must always be asked when people call for regulation is can they profit from it? I can't help but wonder if Musk is actually not doing good here but setting in motion the slow train of regulation so that when he's ready with some uber-AI he'll be in the position to get the rules of the game altered to his advantage with bureaucracy, regulation and licensing.
  • From a facebook post about AI "I still wouldn't trust it. It's like cloning. It's something we shouldn't be messing with." and the classic " If you were a computer, and had the ability to, why wouldn't you exterminate the human race? We are hip deep in fucktards".
  • If the AI learned anything it would be how to use racial and sexual slurs in Peruvian whilst smack talking the entire time ultimately quitting the match should any of the other "parameters" upset them...

    A computer learning how to win a computer game doesn't impress me much. Had it learned gamer behavior that would be something to see! :)

Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899

Working...