421–428 of 428 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's going to be getting to know even more about you and the probability of you clicking on an advertisement, stakeholder, shareholder profits!
I don't understand your comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be amazing if it could achieve the same levels (or higher) without the bootstrapping. The niggling thought in my mind was that AlphaGo's strength is built on human strength.
I suspect you will only be satisfied when AIs play each other at an incomprehensible game of their own devising.
Isn't that the nature of human endeavor? Always looking for the next challenge?
It's important to remember that this is an accomplishment of humanity, not a defeat. By constructing this AI, we are simply creating another tool for advancing our state of being. (or something like that)
What is our purpose if computers can do everything better than us? It feels like computers have taken one aspect of humanness: logic. Computers could do arithmetic, do algebra, play chess, and now they can play go. It hurts because logic is usually thought to be one of the highest of human characteristics. Yes computers might never be able to replicate emotion, but even dogs have that. There's still some aspects we h…
"Naches" from our Machines https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26117
>Naches is a Yiddish term that means joy and pride, and it's often used in the context of vicarious pride, taken from others' accomplishments. You have naches, or as is said in Yiddish, you shep naches, when your children graduate college or get married, or any other instance of vicarious pride. These aren't your own accomplishments, but you can still have a great deal of pride and joy in them.
>And the same thing is true with our machines. We might not understand their thoughts or discoveries or technological advances. But they are our machines and we can have naches from them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> What would you consider to be "true AI"? At what point are you willing to say, "Okay, that's it, computers are just plain smarter than we are?" Look, there's no doubt that computers can outperform humans in specific tasks. There's no doubt that AlphaGo is intelligent when it comes to Go, but on the other hand it would be completely incapable of tackling a different congitive task- say, language, or vision, or disc…
Actually alpha go can be trained for vision or any other task. It's not specialized to win go.
A simple game that this architecture would fail at is Simon [0], where you are presented a sequence and then are tasked to replay the sequence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your pocket calculator is superhuman at arithmetic. Alphago is superhuman at go. It's not a big deal.
Superhuman has a very specific definition in the field of game playing algorithms. It is the case when the algorithm can always beat all humans. AlphaGo winning 5-0 against the number 5 ranked human (Lee) would give only a small indication that it is superhuman. Regarding streaks, evenly matched humans can go 5-0 an expected (0.5)^5 or 3.125 percent of the time. So not particularly rare. If it loses even one game the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know whether this is true. If AlphaGo could do just as well without search, then why did it use search at all? But in any case, I'm not necessarily disputing that. I'm particularly refuting the claim that the AlphaGo architecture is identical to the one that learned to play Atari games and that Deepmind have advertised as a general game-playing agent. My comment here is specifically in reply to the GP who rep…
Where did he say "identical"?
Go was the last perfect information game I knew where the best humans outperformed the best computers. Anyone know any others? Are all perfect information games lost at this point? Can we design one to keep us winning?
Why bother? It's working with radically incomplete and imperfect information where the core of human intelligence actually lies.
Because the process might tell us something interesting and useful about AI and ourselves.