381–390 of 596 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about walking and image recognition.
The recent video of Boston Dynamics Atlas robot looked like it could walk about as well as a human, maybe even better at recovering its balance (see it heroically walking through snow).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah according to Redmond, it seemed that AlphaGo made a few "mistakes" whereas Sedol made none. And yet AlphaGo came out substantially ahead. So I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps we need to see more in-depth analysis of the moves, but it seems that AlphaGo just out-calculated Sedol.
I wonder if their move selection algorithm takes into account the "surprise" factor: given two moves that are almost equal in strength when analyzed to a depth of N, chose the one that looks worst at N-1. That is, if all else is equal, assume that you can search deeper than your human opponent, and lay traps accordingly.
This is my generation's Gary Kasparov vs. Deep Blue. In many ways, it is more significant. Several top commentators were saying how AlphaGo has improved noticeably since October. AlphaGo's victory tonight marks the moment that go is no longer a human dominated contest. It was a very exciting game, incredible level of play. I really enjoyed watching it live with the expert commentary. I recommend the AGA youtube chann…
It either seems like the earlier match vs Euro 3p didn't show AlphaGo's full strength, or it has improved much in the interim. Other takes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
208168199381979984699478633344862770286522453884530548425639456820927419612738015378525648451698519643907259916015628128546089888314427129715319317557736620397247064840935 to be precise. Which is more than even the square of the number of atoms in the universe, showing how silly that comparison is... Btw, the quoted "the average 150-move game contains" makes no sense at all, since such a game contains only 151 positi…
Fold that friggin' number. It's causing everyone to scroll horizontally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never felt playing against what is suppose to be an entire room of machines (wether Deep Blue or Watson) to be fair. What would be fair is to limit the total mass of the computer to say 200kg and leave it at that. What is effectively happening is AlphaGo is running on a distributed system of many, many machines. Even Watson took an entire room. Google is paying a premium to push AlphaGo to win.
The real achievement is in the algorithm. To make an analogy, the accomplishment of putting a man on the moon required that we understand enough to make a rocket. We could have put hundreds of car engines together but that wouldn't ever have gotten us to the moon.
Fitting analogy. There was a line in the film Blood & Donuts about the moon being ruined when they landed on it, which I couldn't really feel until today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The previous problems were solved because people were willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to solve them. And they are still spending that kinds of money. If the normalcy bias was in effect, they wouldn't be spending that money.
People have probably spent billions of dollars to find a cure for cancer, but there isn't one that works for all cancers and most are still very bad news. Say you spent a hundred billion dollars to extinguish the sun- that wouldn't work. How much money you spend is irrelevant when you're up against what people call "hard physical limits".
I've read several articles saying that different cancers are not exactly the same disease, but more like different diseases with the same symptom (uncontrolled tumor growth) and different etiology, even sometimes different from person to person, not just from tissue to tissue. This was said to be a reason that a general cancer cure is so elusive. But is it really thought of as impossible, not just elusive?
Maybe our inability to extinguish the sun is also a limitation of knowledge more than a hard physical limit!
Even if I'm right about this, your description of the situation would still be accurate in that there would be no way to simply throw more money at the problems and guarantee a solution; there would need to be qualitative breakthroughs which aren't guaranteed to happen at any particular level of expenditure. If people had spent multiples of the entire world GDP on a space program in the 1500s, they would still not have been able to get people to the moon, though not because it's physically impossible to do so in an absolute sense.
Just a question to throw out there - does anyone feel like statements like this one "But the game [go] is far more complex than chess, and playing it requires a high level of feeling and intuition about an opponent’s next moves."
… seem to show a lack of understanding of both go and chess?
I understand there may be some cross-sports trash talking, but chess, played at a high level by humans, relies on these things as well. The more structured nature of chess means that it is (or at least was) more amenable to analysis by brute force computer algorithm, but no human evaluates and scores hundreds of millions of positions while playing chess or go.
Eh, the mainstream media is going to say this regardless, and I suppose it's just unrealistic to expect them to draw a distinction between complex for humans and amenable to brute force computation but statements like this always seemed to show a remarkable lack of awareness of how people actually play these games (though I am not an especially skilled chess or go player).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same the "game will start in 0 seconds" thing kept cutting the audio in and out, and obstructing the board footage. Terrible for an uploaded youtube clip. I can understand issues with the live stream. But it's already over. Couldn't someone have edited that out?
Those technical issues were only a problem a few times at the beginning of the broadcast. 99% of the footage is fine, just stick with it. The problems disappear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
208168199381979984699478633344862770286522453884530548425639456820927419612738015378525648451698519643907259916015628128546089888314427129715319317557736620397247064840935 to be precise. Which is more than even the square of the number of atoms in the universe, showing how silly that comparison is... Btw, the quoted "the average 150-move game contains" makes no sense at all, since such a game contains only 151 positi…
Fold that friggin' number. It's causing everyone to scroll horizontally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there are physical constraints on computing, but measuring by weight is rather stupid. Measuring the energy consumption seems to be a way better metric (even though "computation per energy" is clearly a human win). Not to mention that we suddenly forgot that computers have their own units of measurement, such as clock speed (hertz) and memory size (bytes).
> (even though "computation per energy" is clearly a human win) Is it? The problem here is it is really hard to compare the TCO. For example prime human computation requires years and years of learning and teaching, in which the human cannot be turned off (this kills the human). A computer can save its state and go in a low or even a zero power mode. >such as clock speed (hertz) and memory size (bytes). Which are com…
Are the units I proposed perfect for the job? Of course not, just look how much you wrote. But I bet that if you do the same "thoroughly" analysis for measuring computing by weight you'll be able not only to write a fat paragraph such as your last one, you can write a whole book on who wrong/meaningless/stupid it is (not that anyone would read such book though).