Yes, but the "nuke rush" strategy would be incredibly easy to program into an AI. As far as I could tell from your video, the nuke rush didn't really require that you react too much to what the enemy does. You build your nuke and ghost as fast as you can along with your science vessel and a few other things, then storm your way into their base and watch the enemy die. That's the kind of thing that a computer would be amazing at. It's the long term defensive strategy that the computer would have trouble with.randommaster said:
On the Ball: Man Versus Machine
- Thread starter Jordan Deam
- Start date
Holy crap, it's pretty awesome that a knee-jerk response to an article got posted. Its like 15 minutes of anonymous fame. I love how most of these responses are arguing the essence of sport.
You know why? Computers are tools. No one ever got an award for wrenching the fastest. No one gets an off on shaping metal anymore, that's what happens to society and technology advances. Flying planes used to be globally renown, now its simplified and turned into a hobby. It ceases to be amazing. If you think what I said was retarded, then by literal context of course it is. It has little substance, because you gave and so did most of the people on here sans the article that much thought that went into it.
Sports are what, events of enjoyment for spectators, and enjoyment for those that do them. When something no longer becomes an event of wonder its socially downgraded to recreation or hobby. No grand stands dedicated to its monument anymore.
What happens when a tool can consistently outperform its human counterparts? Humans adapt, into a realm the tool or AI cannot perform. That in itself is an awesome sport.
Things are not black and white ladies and gentlemen, and things are not stagnate. The "On a long enough time line everything turns to nothing, this logic sucks!" argument is just silly. Think about things just a little bit more, just like I should have when I mentioned that I can't find that(e-sports) amazing.
"Sport" and "pro" are what we make them. Have some one tell you they're a professional lamplighter (a real old job) and you'll laugh at them. That's what a light switch is for.
Anyway, you all know the only thing that really matters is what you want to do and have fun with. Everyone only gets one!
My logic never said nothing in life can ever be a sport, I just said I can't claim its a sport if a computer can consistently do it better.Athinira said:
You know why? Computers are tools. No one ever got an award for wrenching the fastest. No one gets an off on shaping metal anymore, that's what happens to society and technology advances. Flying planes used to be globally renown, now its simplified and turned into a hobby. It ceases to be amazing. If you think what I said was retarded, then by literal context of course it is. It has little substance, because you gave and so did most of the people on here sans the article that much thought that went into it.
Sports are what, events of enjoyment for spectators, and enjoyment for those that do them. When something no longer becomes an event of wonder its socially downgraded to recreation or hobby. No grand stands dedicated to its monument anymore.
What happens when a tool can consistently outperform its human counterparts? Humans adapt, into a realm the tool or AI cannot perform. That in itself is an awesome sport.
Things are not black and white ladies and gentlemen, and things are not stagnate. The "On a long enough time line everything turns to nothing, this logic sucks!" argument is just silly. Think about things just a little bit more, just like I should have when I mentioned that I can't find that(e-sports) amazing.
"Sport" and "pro" are what we make them. Have some one tell you they're a professional lamplighter (a real old job) and you'll laugh at them. That's what a light switch is for.
Anyway, you all know the only thing that really matters is what you want to do and have fun with. Everyone only gets one!
It would be very difficult to keep a "Master AI" up to date with a game's meta-game. If the AI hasn't been coded to deal with a new strategy, then it will be beaten. Therefore it would need to be updated constantly, which I s'pose over time would turn it into an unbeatable beast once all variant strategies have been discovered. Really, it just isn't feasible.
Just an important note to your post: I only read the article. I didn't read into other (potential) comments you made in the issue of the Escapist.
Now that you have explained yourself a bit better, i overall agree. But as for your example with the "lamplighter", that would only be relevant if lamplighter had some grounds for competition. One of the reasons starcraft is so popular despite it's age is that it's a great game for competition, so therefore, being labeled as a pro at "lamplightning" might not be anything special, but being labeled as a pro in StarCraft can actually carry benefits as long as people are willing to be spectators for the circus.
"Sport" (or E-sport) is in itself a terrible word. "Competition" is much better. You compete in a discipline versus other humans to test who is the better man. Computers, robots or AI's can't change that. It's like saying that sprinting competitions aren't fun because a Cheetah can sprint 60+ MPH. Sure, a Cheetah can run much faster than a human, but you aren't going to have Cheetah's running versus humans as a spectator sport anytime soon, while human sprinting competitions are still a popular discipline.
My point is that what non-human elements can achieve is irrelevant as long as the competition stays between humans. Sure, you can do non-human competitions (Kasparov vs. Deep Blue), if nothing else just for the laughs, but in the end, it shouldn't be compared to human vs. human, and it probably shouldn't be made into a spectator event either.
Now that you have explained yourself a bit better, i overall agree. But as for your example with the "lamplighter", that would only be relevant if lamplighter had some grounds for competition. One of the reasons starcraft is so popular despite it's age is that it's a great game for competition, so therefore, being labeled as a pro at "lamplightning" might not be anything special, but being labeled as a pro in StarCraft can actually carry benefits as long as people are willing to be spectators for the circus.
"Sport" (or E-sport) is in itself a terrible word. "Competition" is much better. You compete in a discipline versus other humans to test who is the better man. Computers, robots or AI's can't change that. It's like saying that sprinting competitions aren't fun because a Cheetah can sprint 60+ MPH. Sure, a Cheetah can run much faster than a human, but you aren't going to have Cheetah's running versus humans as a spectator sport anytime soon, while human sprinting competitions are still a popular discipline.
My point is that what non-human elements can achieve is irrelevant as long as the competition stays between humans. Sure, you can do non-human competitions (Kasparov vs. Deep Blue), if nothing else just for the laughs, but in the end, it shouldn't be compared to human vs. human, and it probably shouldn't be made into a spectator event either.
Yes, you CAN train an AI. See Artificial neural network [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network]randommaster said:
The problem is that it will be much too slow to have the reaction needed to beat a pro SC player.
In the case of Deep Blue, since IBM couldn't out think a human, they went for the brute force way with a huge parallel computer that had access to a database of pro chess player matches.
I think it may be possible to make a pro SC AI today, but there's no way it can run on a PC running SCII at the same time. It may take 30 octo-core, but it is possible. It's just not practical enough to put in your living room.
This *points up* though with one exception: Human vs. Machine matches make for great spectator events, at least the first time it's done. Once it's established that one can consistently beat the other with little to no difficulty it goes right back to Human vs. Human and maybe Machine vs. Machine again.Athinira said:
Starcraft is difficult to automate for the same reason poker is, there is incomplete information and an element of bluffing involved. Computer scientists have taken an interest in hold'em bots recently, and the research is significant because it is on the cutting edge of science and is trying to gain new knowledge in regards to how to process and make good decisions with incomplete information.
Unless the programmer cheated and programmed the AI to query the hidden location of enemy units and base decisions on that. >.>dochmbi said:
However, taking the logic a step further wouldn't it be interesting to see a game which pitted humans against AI while giving both a chance to win.
Suppose that the speed of AI was balanced by the flexibility of human thinking.
Or even if a machine was pitted against a human in some sort of virtual race, then the reflexes of the machine could be compensated for by the superior terrain navigation by the buman.
It would require some balancing to get right, but that's all part of designing a good game, or even a good competition, right?
Suppose that the speed of AI was balanced by the flexibility of human thinking.
Or even if a machine was pitted against a human in some sort of virtual race, then the reflexes of the machine could be compensated for by the superior terrain navigation by the buman.
It would require some balancing to get right, but that's all part of designing a good game, or even a good competition, right?
Okay, do motor boats make crew obsolete? Maybe crew is now just a historical curiosity, partaken of as a hobby or for general fitness?
To excel at a game you may be good but you will always be bound by the confines of the game. Sure, you might come up with a brand new strategy but you are still thinking inside the box. I say it is better to be the one that, metaphorically speaking, invents the game. Treading on new ground--computers cannot go there.
To excel at a game you may be good but you will always be bound by the confines of the game. Sure, you might come up with a brand new strategy but you are still thinking inside the box. I say it is better to be the one that, metaphorically speaking, invents the game. Treading on new ground--computers cannot go there.
Considering there's a World Championship Lumberjack Competition [http://www.2camels.com/world-championship-lumberjack-competition.php], I'm not sure your "jobs aren't sports" definition works either. People can compete at just about anything that allows for variation in performance.Xersues said:
Hell, freaking weightlifting is a sport, and that's just picking things up and putting them down again. How much more mundane can you get than that?
Can some games be considered e-sports? I dunno, but "computers play themselves faster than players can" isn't a reason to discard the idea that computer games can be sports.
On a somewhat related note, I still don't think of poker as a sport - I don't care how often ESPN plays it. It's a gamble, not a direct competition. THAT I'd consider more of a reason to find Starcraft's sport status questionable than anything to do with the computer: sometimes it's just a shot in the dark that pays off or a cheese tactic that circumvents 90% of the game. I have a hard time considering a game where you can win by bluffing to be a sport. But then, that's just me, nothing technically defining about the term in it. (Afterthought: many sports can involve bluffing of a sort - acting tired or injured is semi-common in Tennis, for instance, as a way to get a breather or put an opponent's pace off a step; Soccer players exaggerate "injuries" all the time to get fouls called. I'd use a more specific term than bluffing if I could think of one.)
You COULD program an AI to blindly nuke rush, but the only reason it's remarkable in the video is because BoxeR new his opponent wasn't very good. The nuke rush strategy is incrediblt inefficient and risky, which is why you don't usually see it happen. An AI in that situation would have gone with a more conventional strategy.thimblyjoe said:
You are right that you can "train"AI, but I was indeed thinking only about conventional desktops, so I didn't mention the crazy supercomputers that scientists are so fond of.lomylithruldor said:
Basic counter-example: fighting, as in UFC. Still regarded as a "sport" of sorts, despite the fact that a well-designed robot could easily knock a man, even a body-builder, out. The fact that there exist tools designed to cause damage to humans doesn't seem to diminish people's excitement at human ability to damage each other.Xersues said:My logic never said nothing in life can ever be a sport, I just said I can't claim its a sport if a computer can consistently do it better.
You know why? Computers are tools. No one ever got an award for wrenching the fastest. No one gets an off on shaping metal anymore, that's what happens to society and technology advances. Flying planes used to be globally renown, now its simplified and turned into a hobby. It ceases to be amazing. If you think what I said was retarded, then by literal context of course it is. It has little substance, because you gave and so did most of the people on here sans the article that much thought that went into it.
Sports are what, events of enjoyment for spectators, and enjoyment for those that do them. When something no longer becomes an event of wonder its socially downgraded to recreation or hobby. No grand stands dedicated to its monument anymore.
What happens when a tool can consistently outperform its human counterparts? Humans adapt, into a realm the tool or AI cannot perform. That in itself is an awesome sport.
Things are not black and white ladies and gentlemen, and things are not stagnate. The "On a long enough time line everything turns to nothing, this logic sucks!" argument is just silly. Think about things just a little bit more, just like I should have when I mentioned that I can't find that(e-sports) amazing.
"Sport" and "pro" are what we make them. Have some one tell you they're a professional lamplighter (a real old job) and you'll laugh at them. That's what a light switch is for.
Anyway, you all know the only thing that really matters is what you want to do and have fun with. Everyone only gets one!
There are other examples detailed in other posts as well.
Humans care about human achievement, human competition. As many others have said, the fact that a machine can outperform humans doesn't seem to phase our enjoyment of a sport.
Your dismissal of eSports because a perfect AI is hypothetically possible comes across as silly. There are many things which are hypothetically possible, including a perfect batting machine, a perfect golfing machine, a perfect pitching machine, etc. Their hypothetical existence does not invalidate the entertainment value of the sports.
Nowadays, computers can consistently outperform nearly all human players at chess, because of tremendous computational power combined with massive game databases. Does this inherently make chess a worse game? A less impressive display of deep strategic skill?
I think not, though your opinion may be different.
Your examples include things which would probably never have been sports, because there's little complexity or skill involved. "Wrenching" doesn't sound like a sport, not because a robot could wrench better, but because it inherently lacks entertainment value. It's just repetitive work. Yet it could be a competition, and be entertaining in a proper context.
"Lamp-Lighting" doesn't sound like a sport not only because we don't have lamps that need lighting anymore, but because it doesn't sound like it requires sufficient skill. Yet it too could be a sport, in a proper context. Perhaps a Reality TV competition or something like that.
Soo, everyone is pretty worked up about this, eh?
Lets put some things first:
AI can learn. At this point in time not very fast, but that's not the point. In time AI will be as functional as humans are.
When you take stuff down to the core, Deep Blue was nothing more than one big fraud. He saw the board, he ran his database of options, and decided. The database, however, was filled with a lot of matches throughout the years. All it did was chose the statisticaly best one.
It did a pretty good job, but it is not quite AI.
SC, but also Warcraft, Halo or WoW, are games. Games have human factor. Soccer is a game too. It has a human factor. Sure, there's robot soccer, but they don't stand upright, nor technically "kick" the ball.
In time they might.
What I'm trying to say is that there's always a human factor. Being either bluff, luck or sheer intelect.
At this point in time, man has all of those more than the AI. AI can't decide to "bluff" or scare the opponent. It might, but not intentionally. It might in the future, but that's very complicated stuff.
In short, modern day AI is not going to cut it. No matter how hard we try, with the technology of today, we cannot safely say AI>Human in anything. It does things too differently.
Lets put some things first:
AI can learn. At this point in time not very fast, but that's not the point. In time AI will be as functional as humans are.
When you take stuff down to the core, Deep Blue was nothing more than one big fraud. He saw the board, he ran his database of options, and decided. The database, however, was filled with a lot of matches throughout the years. All it did was chose the statisticaly best one.
It did a pretty good job, but it is not quite AI.
SC, but also Warcraft, Halo or WoW, are games. Games have human factor. Soccer is a game too. It has a human factor. Sure, there's robot soccer, but they don't stand upright, nor technically "kick" the ball.
In time they might.
What I'm trying to say is that there's always a human factor. Being either bluff, luck or sheer intelect.
At this point in time, man has all of those more than the AI. AI can't decide to "bluff" or scare the opponent. It might, but not intentionally. It might in the future, but that's very complicated stuff.
In short, modern day AI is not going to cut it. No matter how hard we try, with the technology of today, we cannot safely say AI>Human in anything. It does things too differently.
FYI there are micro bots out there already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1HaspqVynw people just don't care for them. Also dynamically responding to a game is not something most AI can do very well.
isn't that what intelligence is? the ability to take past instances into consideration when making decisions?De Ronneman said:
sounds like Deep Blue wasn't a fraud, just was a very simple form of AI.. still an AI. There wasn't a man behind the curtain pulling levers and making it go.
I think you're being a bit too critical of Deep Blue. I've written very simple programs that can do similar things. A friend of mine and myself made a world of warcraft addon that could tank molten core using a single button being spammed over and over.. (and, admittedly required you to move the character yourself, but I digress)
I'd be hard pressed to call what I made AI, but it acted like AI. It was context sensitive. The program knew the situation that it was in and chose from the options I gave it the one best suited for the situation, from a list of situations I gave it.
If I had put several thousand variables into it then a hundred or so though, it might have looked a bit more like an AI.. and if I had the resources to give it unlimited variables, it would definitely be a form of AI.
We're not talking about Data on the USS Enterprise here.. we're just talking about the most basic of pattern recognition.