The absolute value of any Go board position is well-defined, and MCTS provides good computationally tractable approximations that get better as the rest of the system improves but already start better than random.
the absolute value of a go board position is well defined? where?
As a human go player I can say that evaluating board position is close to impossible.
You may have a seemingly good position and in two turns it seems that you have lost the game already.
I think if AlphaGo foresaw it was losing by one point, it would start playing reckless moves, as it did against Lee-Sedol in the only match it lost against him.
Risky, not reckless.
It wasn't risky. It was reckless. It played moves that made no sense and were obviously bad moves or pointless moves.
I'm talking specifically about game #4 of the Lee Sedol games.
I'm reminded of Eliezer Yudkowski's article "There is no fire Alarm for Artificial General Intelligence." Is this smoke? https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/ Yes, this is not an AGI. But the hockey-stick takeoff from defeats some players, to defeats an undefeated world-champion, to defeats the version of itself that beat the world champion 100% of the time is nuts . If this happens in other domains, like f…
You don't even need to produce an AGI for this kind of intelligence to be frightening. At some point, a military is going to develop autonomous weapons that are vastly superior to human beings on the battle field, with no risk of losing human lives, and there is going to be a blitzkrieg sort of situation as the relative power of nations shifts dramatically. If we have two such countries we could have massive drone an…
i'm not sure robot soldier is scarier than nukes. generally speaking, if they are just single task robots performing functions in dangerous situations, that seems like an improvement to risking human lives.