restricting controls while typing is an arbitrary restriction considering they can communicate with audio asynchronously.

this brings up another interesting topic all together- which is how inefficient human language is at communicating complex ideas, quickly, with people you don't know.

that is- just like how AI has an obvious APM advantage, it also has an obvious communication advantage (raw serialization and deserialization. there is no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation).

basically, all information known by one agent will be known by all other agents in near-realtime. something humans can't do yet.

> restricting controls while typing is an arbitrary restriction considering they can communicate with audio asynchronously.

On the other hand, if four people are simultaneously speaking to you, it's hard to understand all of them at once (especially if you're also talking at the same time); of course, an AI would presumably be able to communicate information much more quickly to other AIs than humans can to other humans, so limiting one to "speaking" at a time would probably not be that detrimental to them

Best would be if they had a language model, but no memory of communicating together in the past, so each game the AI would have the additional hurdle of building up communication.

depends on the goal, right? considering they want to limit APM in the SCII model- we can assume that goal is something like "beat a human under human conditions". in that case yes, communication needs some limitation. but this seems uninspiring. "assuming" a no-limitations AI can beat a human in RTS, the question seems more like "how many inefficiencies must we introduce before the AI is 'fair' game".

but, there is a different use case where you have an AI team try to beat another AI team under optimal conditions, which i think is more interesting, as it has the chance to completely change the metagame (like what Deep Blue and DeepMind can do for Chess/Go respectively).