Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Can we adapt AlphaZero's self-play technique for better human learning?

news.ycombinator.com

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Ask HN: Can we adapt AlphaZero's self-play technique for better human learning?

#11
Short answer: No, there's nothing new here that can inform better human learning.

Longer answer: The concept of self-play isn't new in any sense. All chess players use this technique to some degree. None use only this technique. The advantage of self play is that there's no risk of accidentally picking up someone else's an incorrect assumption. Since you're deriving everything from scratch. Some people take this to extremes, there's a math professor who doesn't read any math papers so that he's deriving everything from first principles and not "contaminating his mind" it works quite well for him but unfortunately I'm blanking on his name. However, commitment to this technique removes one of the major advantages that humans have which is their ability to communicate knowledge amongst themselves in a compact, abstract way with language. Humans also have a pretty good way to mitigate the faulty assumption risk: skepticism. We can reevaluate our assumptions, and, if we deem it necessary, excise them from our mental model. AlphaZero could in theory do the same thing, the reality for AlphaZero though is that there's not much point, it has no use for the sum total of human knowledge on chess, it's capable of recreating that and much more in a few hours.

If there is something to be learned from AlphaZero's training it's that you should always be skeptical of your assumptions, that's not anything new, but it's always worth reiterating. It's pretty obviously not feasible to take this to the extremes of AlphaZero though, humans need other humans to learn. Even the math professor who doesn't read papers needed a lot of interfacing with other humans to learn to get to the point where he could derive things from first principles.

Re: Ask HN: Can we adapt AlphaZero's self-play technique for better human learning?

#12

Don't humans already do this, in a way? Instead of playing against yourself, you take somebody stronger and play them. You only need on the order of a 100 games of chess against a decent opposition, with some verbal explanations, to reach amateur level. Per-game, this is much more efficient than AlphaZero, which requires millions of games as well as tons of computing power. Surely the main reason AlphaZero uses that…

Thanks for being the first to reply. I was worried I'd just get upvotes and no replies! I think you have two separate points, one with which I agree and one with which I disagree. First, I agree (and other commentators about AlphaZero seem to as well) that human learning "algorithms" still beat AlphaZero's on per-game ROI. On the other hand, I disagree that AlphaZero's self-play is no more interesting than a human pl…

I think this is actually how everyone learns!

You can't put information into people. You can present it to them, but they need to teach themselves, so to speak.

If you have what I think is a good schooling system, it will recognize and emphasize the self-teach aspect - students are encouraged to figure things out on their own.

For instance, where I studied CS most of the time was allocated to doing semester projects where we'd be a small self-organized team of 3-7 students working on something with very little external input.

You can find similar ideas for schools, e.g. Sudbury schools. I think the Waldorf school has some aspects of it too. I'm sending my children to such a school.

Re: Ask HN: Can we adapt AlphaZero's self-play technique for better human learning?

#13

Don't humans already do this, in a way? Instead of playing against yourself, you take somebody stronger and play them. You only need on the order of a 100 games of chess against a decent opposition, with some verbal explanations, to reach amateur level. Per-game, this is much more efficient than AlphaZero, which requires millions of games as well as tons of computing power. Surely the main reason AlphaZero uses that…

Thanks for being the first to reply. I was worried I'd just get upvotes and no replies! I think you have two separate points, one with which I agree and one with which I disagree. First, I agree (and other commentators about AlphaZero seem to as well) that human learning "algorithms" still beat AlphaZero's on per-game ROI. On the other hand, I disagree that AlphaZero's self-play is no more interesting than a human pl…

I have two thoughts:

AlphaZero plays millions of games against itself with a low per-game ROI in much less time than it takes a human playing against an expert with a high ROI. In this way AlphaZero has more work to do than the human to achieve a certain skill level, after which it is probably doing a similar amount of work to the human to continue to improve but can do it in much larger numbers.

On the other hand, I think I've heard of experts at chess playing games against themselves but I can't seem to find a reference at the moment.

Re: Ask HN: Can we adapt AlphaZero's self-play technique for better human learning?

#15
I don't think we can learn much from how an engine learns, but we certainly can learn from its results.

For example, there's this interesting discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/7ibzq4/stockfish_vs_...

Because Alphazero did not learn from human games, it looks at the different pieces without attaching values like we do. It has no problems sacrificing a higher "valued" piece for the sake of its strategy.

Re: Ask HN: Can we adapt AlphaZero's self-play technique for better human learning?

#17

AlphaZero plays games with (1) perfect information and (2) well-defined winning conditions . Neither of these hold for most human-learning scenarios. I can imagine that a healthy dose of probability theory (and probably more advanced stuff I don't know about[1]) might improve (1), but (2) is going to keep computer scientists and philosophers and ethicists arguing for quite a long time. :) [1] get the joke, eh? eh? eh…

They essentially hold for math, which is a pretty big deal.

Re: Ask HN: Can we adapt AlphaZero's self-play technique for better human learning?

#19

AlphaZero plays games with (1) perfect information and (2) well-defined winning conditions . Neither of these hold for most human-learning scenarios. I can imagine that a healthy dose of probability theory (and probably more advanced stuff I don't know about[1]) might improve (1), but (2) is going to keep computer scientists and philosophers and ethicists arguing for quite a long time. :) [1] get the joke, eh? eh? eh…

They essentially hold for math, which is a pretty big deal.

What are the winning conditions for math?

Re: Ask HN: Can we adapt AlphaZero's self-play technique for better human learning?

#20

Don't humans already do this, in a way? Instead of playing against yourself, you take somebody stronger and play them. You only need on the order of a 100 games of chess against a decent opposition, with some verbal explanations, to reach amateur level. Per-game, this is much more efficient than AlphaZero, which requires millions of games as well as tons of computing power. Surely the main reason AlphaZero uses that…

Thanks for being the first to reply. I was worried I'd just get upvotes and no replies! I think you have two separate points, one with which I agree and one with which I disagree. First, I agree (and other commentators about AlphaZero seem to as well) that human learning "algorithms" still beat AlphaZero's on per-game ROI. On the other hand, I disagree that AlphaZero's self-play is no more interesting than a human pl…

Life is too short.

Alpha Zero can play millions of games against itself. I can't.

Post reply on HN