I thin the AIs don't communicate. But in the end it doesn't even matter. Because the decision making is exactly the same. If you have 5 humans you have 5 opinions what to do next. if you have 5 time the same AI they all have the same opinion of a situation.

@@somersault4762 Even with 5 humans those 5 opinions are of a limited range of options.

yup individual max potential

so no matter how selfish you are, at the end of the day you still need others. isnt that sweet in a way that even ai with no understanding whatsoever still subconsciously depends on each other?

@@rikkiii4483 its not "dependence" tho, it is simply the most efficient way to accomplish its goal. Also it *is* a team game so it is pretty much unavoidable. This just means that design vise, dota 2 encourages working together as even an AI that looks for efficiency cannot do without. Either that or the developers of the AI put their biases in the code so that it shows.

That's because some people always wants to carry :) They don't want competition. They don't want to share the glory. I play support and people report me if I get some of "their" creeps.

@@stefangaleksandrov The honor people play with is embarassing. Obviously you want farm on carry but if your support gets some damn boots and feeds less or gets a glimmmer and helps everyone feed less, its not the end of the world. I jungled a single camp the other day early on in game and carry got mad. Meanwhile theres 2 other camps and they about to spawn in 20 seconds anyway and all of sudden i am less useless. It didn't even effect his gameplay and i went on to gank with more. Long story short, people need to chill To be clear, I dont jungle on supports lol. Just 1 camp here and there to finish an item early on, depends on your hero too

That's interesting to hear, but for humans, in larger fights those 0.2 seconds, would actually be 15+ seconds. Also AI keeps track of every cooldown, stuff which humans could never do. But creativity wise, the AI is probably pretty stupid.

I'd pull the plug atp

They already did come on the statistics is so tilting. Like what?? Are you really up ahead of us?? Then they will show some weird combo and they will work

wym "We estimate the probability of winning to be above 99%" doesnt sound like trashtalking

it's just a simple code. devs can do that in 30 minutes tho if they wanted

I wanna see the next open ai whenever that will be use chat wheel

Split farming makes sense in some line ups, especially ones with item hungry supports like a CM. Sure, she’s the poster child of sacrificial pos 5, but she is also one of the scariest supports with farm. Same can go for a lot of other supports. It also removes the onus on one player to carry as hard when everyone has the power to kill in meaningful ways.

support meta has been getting more and more greedyier even more so now!

Long time ago there wasn't such thing that support shouldn't farm at all. Later it did change because people decided that this is the "meta".

its ofc the most optimal, but only if you are a dota god that can predict things like ganks that could happen to you and even baiting a possible turn for even more gains, for the AI more networth is the only thing that matters to them because computing probability is just child's play

I think there's enough farm on the map to make sure each hero gets major items at meaningful times (completing an item vs banking gold/carrying components is such a power spike I'm sure the AI understands). The problem is, we are risk adverse creatures and there's a lot of risk to the a majority of the farm on the map. I think the AI manages risk reward much better than humans. It definitely shows when you're expecting the two cores with all the money to 2v5.

some good points , and likewise agree this iteration of OpenAI's bot was kinda cobbled together as their paper goes into , even originally built on hand-coded scripts to guide/coach the reinforcement learning agents , and did "surgery" over the course of training to add features resulting in a frankenstein. i think would be very different if they were to approach it today , or if DeepMind would do a "AlphaZero" style version . however i wonder if your assumption is correct about its victory being purely inhuman advantage , rather then its "strategy" / alternate meta . firstly the reaction time of the bot is 217ms compared to human average of 250ms ( likely pro players have better ) so its not that far ahead there , map awareness however it likely has significant advantage unfortunately . overall i think we can indeed learn from it and at the very least reconsider some of the inherited assumptions of our own isolated meta . hopefully the next version will have significant limitation on apm / map awarness tickrate etc , like deepmind did with starcraft2 bot ( tho even that still did some inhuman micro ) .

@@zzzzzzz8473 Yeah, inhuman mechanics is pretty uninteresting in my opinion. But 217ms is indeed very inhuman btw, humans can only achieve that consistently when anticipating something specific and have 0 input delay. In practice, pros don't even consistently react to spells like Axe's Call or RP, those have 0.3s cast time (and there's additional delay between Blink and cast too). They even miss getting abilities off vs Arcane Blink+Requiem (0.84ms) quite frequently. The AI has 217ms reaction to anything that can happen, anywhere on the map, without fail, it's a massive advantage. 350-400ms would be more fair.

@@oyuyuy Thank you for the clarification , your absolutely right , i overlooked that 250ms avg was in sight-response tests which is by far best case scenario , and doesnt properly compare things like a well timed combo sequence or multiple players chain CC'ing . map awareness is an interesting one that DeepMind tried to humanize in starcraft2 by forcing the agent to move the viewscreen , rather then its first iteration that observed the full map . what you said about " 217ms reaction to anything " is i think the most important aspect in that right now the agent may have an attention / concentration economy that is inhumanly large , like when we're last hitting we're not also holding all the enemy predicted positions + all the neutral timers + enemy ability cooldowns in our heads at the same time . its difficult to estimate based on the layers of the network if the agent could do this however it would help to keep things balanced if somekind of "concentration limit" could be implemented for AI-human competition . lastly i dont mean to disparage the accomplishments of the OpenAI's agent , and i think there are indeed things we can learn from it . not simple things like build this or do that , but to adjust our weighting of values in strategies , the heavy macro , objective focus , instant buyback , no position style , is something different , and in general that we can become overly sure of ourselves and the meta thinking things are optimally solved when there is still lots to explore .

@@zzzzzzz8473 Yeah it's very difficult to account for all the difficulties humans have compared to computers. For most other practical purposes, you don't want AI to have those restrictions either. It really makes you appreciate how well humans can do with their limited capabilities though. What OpenAI did was of course still impressive in it's own way, I just think it would be much more interesting to how it would beat humans strategically rather than mechanically. Since the games were so even despite the AI having huge mechanical advantages, I think it's reasonable to assume that it isn't anywhere close to the level of human strategy just yet.

you already know a lot of people will complain that their AI was bad or "glitched" or something like that when they lose

@@purpleisthesneakiest to be honest, I play with bots and some games some bots are not buying any items from the start to end. Not even a tango. Some games the all team is without items. It generally happens on my team but sometimes on enemy team as well. So yeah, currently that happens. In those games, the most broken hero is BB. Because they don't position to the front and they never use silver edge. At the end my team bots have combined score of 1-25-7 while I have 30-2-1. And with BB I always win :)

​@@purpleisthesneakiest I would jump back into dota of they added ai bots in, games would be fun.

Or to call the police on their address

Yeah but she wasn’t even using frostbite here right?

They only need to make it so the AI actually uses frost bite.

@@TheDominionOfElites Yes, but she was also clearing mostly Satyr's which are smaller and would waste more mana by using Bite. Frost Bite is more effective on large creeps with a lot of health.

They stopped training the AI after this afaik.

I'm surprised the AI even play regular lanes. I wonder if just absolutely breaking down the game format has some statistical advantage to be discovered

@@Zarzar22 i think they used to play with 1 hero in each lane and 2 in jungle and they had to correct that if i remember because the ai gave so much priority to exp

@@Zarzar22 Remember reading that OpenAI had 'incentives' (or biases?) to speed up the training proccess where the program(mers) would give it points if it did certain actions. Something like that.

they got already something like this on Sc2, people were trying to pull out the best ia against ia mechanics/gameplay...btw those games are insane

when was chat ever right?? kek

Wont win the early game. But if your team does this well, then you can win mid game.

yeah that never happens. look at chess.

@@rajahzia Are chess AI banned from competition or are the humans just better?

@@tw1nzstrpur3 The top chess AI's would never lose to a human player. The best AI in the world just reached 4000 elo rating, while the best player in the world , by comparison , is 2800. In fact there are cases of top chess players using the AI to cheat. AI's compete in their own tournaments, seperate from human players.

@@philipsorensen617 Interesting, thanks for the info chess isnt really my forte lol.

@@tw1nzstrpur3 There is no real competition btw humans and Chess computers anymore as the chess engines are extremely strong. The best human chess players in the world have no chance of beating an engine once even after 100 games.