AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
Does anyone know how KestasBot performs against de Jonge and Sierra's D-Brane?
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
... and whether KestasBot is still learning, now against human players on webDiplomacy?
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
They are not currently learning, but we are still gathering data. There's a non-zero chance they might be updated at some point, but there are no plans for that at the moment.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
This paper was released at the same time as the bots. The benchmark used was Albert 6.0 and it beat out Albert.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
The Paquette et al. NIPS paper mentioned that "the supervised agent was able to learn to coordinate support orders while this behaviour appears to deteriorate during self-play training".
Without yet understanding the details, I wondered if this reflected the self-play bot getting stuck in a local maximum due to (non-robust) play against itself - rather than against a more diverse range of opponents. If so, I'd conjecture that learning from its webDiplomacy games could help it get out of this local max.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
Well yes, the point was that when it learned from webdip, it was able to more effectively support others. When it learned from itself, it was less effective at supporting others, and was more effective at winning. The goal of the bot isn't to support, it is to win. Since the bot is in a gunboat setting, it makes sense that supporting other countries wasn't as rewarding.ColinR wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 7:29 amThe Paquette et al. NIPS paper mentioned that "the supervised agent was able to learn to coordinate support orders while this behaviour appears to deteriorate during self-play training".
Without yet understanding the details, I wondered if this reflected the self-play bot getting stuck in a local maximum due to (non-robust) play against itself - rather than against a more diverse range of opponents. If so, I'd conjecture that learning from its webDiplomacy games could help it get out of this local max.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
We're hosting a virtual Meetup on Wednesday (13 May, 18:30 UK time = 17:30 GMT) to kick-off a Diplomacy AI project.
As the webDiplomacy/Paquette et al. bots are the most impressive I've seen, I'd love it if some of you could join us.
We're using software that allows participants to break into groups (called 'tables'): if any of you can make it, we could have a webDip table, where you explain what you've been doing to interested participants.
To sign up: https://www.meetup.com/Diplomacy-AI-Mee ... 270438476/
A background resources page: https://github.com/rowatc/Diplomacy-AI
Thanks!
As the webDiplomacy/Paquette et al. bots are the most impressive I've seen, I'd love it if some of you could join us.
We're using software that allows participants to break into groups (called 'tables'): if any of you can make it, we could have a webDip table, where you explain what you've been doing to interested participants.
To sign up: https://www.meetup.com/Diplomacy-AI-Mee ... 270438476/
A background resources page: https://github.com/rowatc/Diplomacy-AI
Thanks!
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
Having read this thread, there's still something I don't understand about the bots - do they all share the same AI? Or were they all trained separately and therefore have their own styles?
From what I read above, is it the case that there are only two styles of the AI (I think one more conservative one more risky?), and any bot could adopt either of those styles in any given game? But then additionally there is a bit of randomness from game to game about what moves a bot might make if presented with an identical situation?
From what I read above, is it the case that there are only two styles of the AI (I think one more conservative one more risky?), and any bot could adopt either of those styles in any given game? But then additionally there is a bit of randomness from game to game about what moves a bot might make if presented with an identical situation?
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
The bots were trained on the same data set, and then they were all "retrained" together as we made some improvements to fill some gaps in their play. Because we can stagger their usage of these two rounds of training, and because they are trained based on human orders and not always the "optimal" or analytically perfect moveset in a given scenario, they do not all always play with identical styles, which makes them pretty unpredictable. They do not respond the same way all the time in certain situations, and maybe in a sense play with a human personality.gnuvag wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:14 amHaving read this thread, there's still something I don't understand about the bots - do they all share the same AI? Or were they all trained separately and therefore have their own styles?
From what I read above, is it the case that there are only two styles of the AI (I think one more conservative one more risky?), and any bot could adopt either of those styles in any given game? But then additionally there is a bit of randomness from game to game about what moves a bot might make if presented with an identical situation?
-
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
- Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
- Contact:
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
I've just played my first game against a Dalek, the one identifying as Kestas Bot. One v one France v Austria and I had Austria. I won in autumn 08 with a five sc margin over the befuddled bundle of algorithms and s/w coding.
I sent the blighter~bot a friendly global message stating that I came in peace to fight to win and the haughty Dalek maintained a surly silence. Unless these blighter~bots learns how to conduct negotiations in polite company I cannot see them getting very far in the alliance making caper.
I sent the blighter~bot a friendly global message stating that I came in peace to fight to win and the haughty Dalek maintained a surly silence. Unless these blighter~bots learns how to conduct negotiations in polite company I cannot see them getting very far in the alliance making caper.
-
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
- Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
- Contact:
Re: AI bots.. Dalek identifying as Kestas Bot defeated by M~M
I'm inordinately pleased with myself for thrashing the surly Dalek. I know it was unranked but I am wondering whether I can I improve my reliability rating playing the Dalek Bots?
-
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
- Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
- Contact:
Re: AI bots.. Dalek identifying as Kestas Bot defeated again by M~M
I thought I'd give the bumbling bundle of algorithms and s/w coding a chance to make amends with a second game, same set up. Victory to M~M in autumn 07, so a year sooner and a stunning 21sc to 7sc result, so a fourteen sc margin. I even captured two French home scs, Marseilles and Brest.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
Love the effort of AI gameplay, but my nitpicking continues...
Why does Jane (England) help Skynet (France) instead of me (Italy) in the endgame?
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameI ... ocache=635
I did nothing provocative against England. France destroyed England, but England helps France solo? In fact, Germany kind of did the same thing too.
As I posted earlier when playing as Austria, only to find Italy, Russia, and Turkey team up against me in '01, it really seems like an unfair collaboration between the AIs. They know enough to support each other, but I've played about three dozen games with them, and this game was the first time any AI ever supported me anywhere.
What's really hilarious is I was trying to support both England and Germany there at the endgame in the East, after NEVER having any issues with them the entire game, but both attacked me! No way that happens in real life with human players...(with all things being equal).
Why does Jane (England) help Skynet (France) instead of me (Italy) in the endgame?
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameI ... ocache=635
I did nothing provocative against England. France destroyed England, but England helps France solo? In fact, Germany kind of did the same thing too.
As I posted earlier when playing as Austria, only to find Italy, Russia, and Turkey team up against me in '01, it really seems like an unfair collaboration between the AIs. They know enough to support each other, but I've played about three dozen games with them, and this game was the first time any AI ever supported me anywhere.
What's really hilarious is I was trying to support both England and Germany there at the endgame in the East, after NEVER having any issues with them the entire game, but both attacked me! No way that happens in real life with human players...(with all things being equal).
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
When do you think Bots will be able to play non-Classic maps?
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
To be clear, these bots were developed as part of a one time project, with no guarantee for further development. We are very lucky to have them, but we have no control over the training or further development of these bots. The only way we are going to get bots that play on non-Classic maps is if someone with the right skill set volunteers to create them for webdip.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
So a couple things. First, England's moves are a bit strange, but those moves at the end actually did nothing to change the outcome of the game. Perhaps England could have prevented a French solo if he had really tried, but his moves were no worse than entering all holds in terms of outcome.Bark wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:57 pmLove the effort of AI gameplay, but my nitpicking continues...
Why does Jane (England) help Skynet (France) instead of me (Italy) in the endgame?
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameI ... ocache=635
I did nothing provocative against England. France destroyed England, but England helps France solo? In fact, Germany kind of did the same thing too.
As I posted earlier when playing as Austria, only to find Italy, Russia, and Turkey team up against me in '01, it really seems like an unfair collaboration between the AIs. They know enough to support each other, but I've played about three dozen games with them, and this game was the first time any AI ever supported me anywhere.
What's really hilarious is I was trying to support both England and Germany there at the endgame in the East, after NEVER having any issues with them the entire game, but both attacked me! No way that happens in real life with human players...(with all things being equal).
Second, I guarantee that the bots cannot communicate with each other. They do not know who the human is, or what moves their neighbors will make. The only "advantage" that they might have is that they all were trained on the same data in the same way, so they "think similarly". This means if there were a lot of games in their training set where France did a particular move and England supported that move, then France is more likely to make that move, and England is more likely to offer that support.
Third, endgames get wonky for bots. Bots have been trained on thousands of games. The beginnings of those games are all pretty similar, with not as many options for how the board looks. So it does really well there. However, as more pieces enter the board, and countries expand past their usual positioning, you get scenarios that may have only shown up once in the training data, or not at all. When you get to a unique endgame, you can get weird stuff happening, because the humans that found themselves in those scenarios did weird things.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
"Endgame gets wonky for robots."Squigs44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:26 pmSo a couple things. First, England's moves are a bit strange, but those moves at the end actually did nothing to change the outcome of the game. Perhaps England could have prevented a French solo if he had really tried, but his moves were no worse than entering all holds in terms of outcome.
Second, I guarantee that the bots cannot communicate with each other. They do not know who the human is, or what moves their neighbors will make. The only "advantage" that they might have is that they all were trained on the same data in the same way, so they "think similarly". This means if there were a lot of games in their training set where France did a particular move and England supported that move, then France is more likely to make that move, and England is more likely to offer that support.
Third, endgames get wonky for bots. Bots have been trained on thousands of games. The beginnings of those games are all pretty similar, with not as many options for how the board looks. So it does really well there. However, as more pieces enter the board, and countries expand past their usual positioning, you get scenarios that may have only shown up once in the training data, or not at all. When you get to a unique endgame, you can get weird stuff happening, because the humans that found themselves in those scenarios did weird things.
This I agree with. There was actually one game where I came back as Russia with only two units in Turkey to solo win, mainly because England got 17 centers or so, and stopped programming orders in the East. I was able to retake Sevastopol, and the party started.
For this game though, the Spring '12 moves by England and Germany make no sense. At this point, the three of us should be trying to prevent the French solo. My strategic intention was to get next to their Moscow and Warsaw to support them, and they bounced me away, allowing France to land in Livonia. Granted, once I made some headway in Marseilles, Spain, and Portugal, I would eventually stab them for my own solo victory, but for this move, they shouldn't be bouncing me.
I also understand that you currently have no developers working on this anymore, but if you do, my two suggestions would be:
1. Let AIs have the ability to hold a grudge. Ex., France takes England's home centers, England doesn't help France until England gets those home centers back, if at all.
2. Let the AIs have the ability to hear chat from a human player and decide to help or not help. Ex., I chat England to say, "A Warsaw S A Galicia to Silesia," England's AI then takes that into consideration and inputs those orders.
Again, not knocking this effort! I'm in IT too, but not programming. I know it's a thankless job, so I'll say thanks! With that said, there's always room for an upgrade in the future.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
You'd definitely have more fun playing against Alberts on the Daide platform.
They have true skill, i.e.: they play with real AI and not reproducing stupid human behaviour; they can hold lines and thus they play good endgame situations, including stalemating; they weigh alliances and can see instant signs of change toward friendship/enmity from a single previous round; and more.
They have true skill, i.e.: they play with real AI and not reproducing stupid human behaviour; they can hold lines and thus they play good endgame situations, including stalemating; they weigh alliances and can see instant signs of change toward friendship/enmity from a single previous round; and more.
Re: AI bots on webDiplomacy: Skynet edition!
In gunboat games, the AI we have outperform Albert. So if you are talking about skill, Albert is not more skilled. The question of fun is subjective though, I imagine having a bot that doesn't get wonky in the endgame could be a large factor of fun for some people.CCR wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:18 pmYou'd definitely have more fun playing against Alberts on the Daide platform.
They have true skill, i.e.: they play with real AI and not reproducing stupid human behaviour; they can hold lines and thus they play good endgame situations, including stalemating; they weigh alliances and can see instant signs of change toward friendship/enmity from a single previous round; and more.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users