Why not limit it to a certain number of keys typed per second, and a certain rate of moving the cursor? Maybe randomly wait 0-150 ms before sending a keypress to simulate human imprecision?
What "somerandomness" what pointing out is that nobody in this thread seems to have actually clicked on the link. DeepMind's article clearly states that they would limit the number of actions per minute (traditionally referred to as APM in esports) taken by their AI, yet people are still saying that this wouldn't be impressive because the machine has an unlimited number of actions.
Clicking the same button twice in a row in rapid succession is much easier for a human to do than clicking two small buttons on different parts of the screen. A naive counter of "actions per minute" would count both things as exactly the same number of actions.
Whenever the harder action is better than the simpler one, the AI would gain an intrinsic advantage even though it's limited to the same number of APM.
My post (the grandparent to yours) fully acknowledges that. However, there are many different things that count as an action in starcraft, and even with a cap on APM, there will be many ways for a computer to pack in more useful actions than a human. Also a computer will have other innate advantages, like perfect timing and map awareness. An equally skilled human will therefore need stronger strategy to make up for these disadvantages. Your parent post appears to suggest mitigating these other advantages in various ways (although I don't personally agree with that approach, since the computer isn't doing something that's out of reach for humans, just things that aren't practical for humans to achieve consistently).
If you did NOT limit APM, it wouldn't even be a contest. The AI could simply mass first tier units and crush any human opponent with micro.
I do not understand the point of an AI if you want it to be equal in all ways to a human. Why not just fight a human?
The goal is to build an AI that is at least as good as pro players (which would involve building models and technology capable of taking complex decisions etc.). The goal was never to implement something that is strictly equal to a human.
You cannot blame the AI for having a better memory and perfect timing, or next thing you know you'll ask them to limit the RAM to something comparable to the memory in a human brain and use older processors to restrict the unfair advantage current computation clusters have.
Regarding your last point: even without limiting APM, there is no AI that can currently compete with decent players . If it was as easy as you say, people would've done that with Broodwar which has open APIs. The fact is that micro alone cannot win a StarCraft game. Perfectly micro-ed zerglings cannot do much against a terran turtling behind a closed wall and shooting with marines, or a protoss with immortals and adepts.
> I do not understand the point of an AI if you want it to be equal in all ways to a human. Why not just fight a human?
Well, if you want just an AI to win with humans, you can stick to playing chess - nowadays the AI can drunk-walk its way to victory through the game tree faster than humans can make leaps in strategic thinking. The point of such experiment here is to impose limits on what an AI can do in order to cancel out "trivial" advantages it has, so that the challenge for AI developers will be to improve the core of strategic thinking & planning. Victory by perfect micro is not interesting[0]. Neither is victory by perfect macro. You need to curtail the avenues which would let the AI win by executing utterly dumb strategies with machine-like precision if you want the AI to develop smart strategies.
TL;DR: because humans are not programmable, so they cannot be rapidly improved ;).
The examples you previously gave are different from what you're saying now, but like I said the article clearly said that they will limit the number of actions per minute which means: no gimmicky/weird micro tricks.
Any other advantage you mentioned (computers having a larger memory and faster reaction time than humans) shouldn't be removed, as that doesn't make any sense: machines will be machines. You're building an AI on such a complex game because you want to be able to model hard problems with incomplete information, and to do so you do need to use a lot of memory and the computer's fast processing... even if that means being faster than a human. That is "fair".
> Your parent post appears to suggest mitigating these other advantages in various ways (although I don't personally agree with that approach, since the computer isn't doing something that's out of reach for humans, just things that aren't practical for humans to achieve consistently).
As far as your last paragraph, I suspect the issue is that people building AIs generally try to follow the spirit of the game. I believe it would be possible write an AI that wins by perfectly macroing out tier-1 units, rushing, and perfectly microing them (and obviously it would be much easier than to build a more general Starcraft AI). If it hasn't been done, I expect that's because it would be little more than a gimmick. It certainly wouldn't be any fun to play against, nor would it advance AI in general.
I don't think it's as easy as that. Even with perfect macro + micro, your opponent could simply scout you, see what build you're going for, and counter your build.
Pro players do have (quasi-)perfect macro: They build units and buildings exactly when they should be built (especially at the early stages of the game). They also have an excellent micro. What makes one player win against the other is often the choices they make (going for a surprising build, or simply executing an attack in a way their opponent wouldn't be ready for).
So I'm pretty sure an AI that would just mass zerglings and micro them "perfectly" still would be crushed by decent players that know how to counter that rush. (build a wall, and have siege tanks or a similar unit)
This is one thing that I think would be fascinating when (if) we get to a competitive AI in this arena.
Do we eventually see the hypothetical human (or AI!) opponent trying to metagame against the way an AI system interacts with the game? E.g. human-pointless feints in an attempt to pollute AI logic?
Under the premise that a competitive AI will reason and act differently than a competitive human (due to aforementioned difference in speed/memory vs abstract thinking resources).
The problem with that is, most counters to first tier units rely on splash damage. As zerg for instance, if your opponent is rushing with lings or marines, you need banelings. But it would be trivial for an ai to neutralize the splash damage, so that wouldn't work.
Generally speaking, the counters are balanced for human players. Biased toward high level players, but still human.
