331–340 of 554 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go still isn't solved (neither is chess), we just have a machine good at knowing which parts of the search space are worth checking.
This is the performance vs understanding dialectic. A bunch of humans built a machine that is superior at chess, but that machine can't teach humans what it knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment sounds reasonable, but shows that you don't understand the challenge of Go on computers very well. Go does not have openings. It has reasonable choices to make, with an insane branching factor, with few moves making much of a difference by themselves. Therefore your database will only extend a few moves, and all of the positions that it winds up with will still be very close to even. So your database con…
> Go does not have openings. There are 381 opening moves in Go, but really only 96 because of symmetry. 96 (opening moves) x 380 responses x 379 x 378 x 377 == ~2 Trillion positions after 5 ply. These 2-trillion positions will easily fit in a 16TB hard drive for $400. That's 8-bytes per position, so you probably can get there with more symmetries and some compression applied. ---------- You're thinking too much like…
Then you wring out a tiny advantage-- a fraction of a stone. It's a small benefit compared to building other parts of understanding of the game.
(alt version) And John Henry, steel driving man, felt that his heart was about to burst and saw that he would lose to the steam-powered rock drilling machine. So he said "fuck it, ain't worth it," dropped his hammer, and walked away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it? Popular music sees major paradigm shifts every few years, and AIs only really generate things based on observation of existing patterns, at least as far as I can tell. As far as recent examples go, Lady Gaga and Lorde were major breaks from what was prevalent at the time they started releasing music, and then spawned artists trying to emulate them.
A pattern implies that it can "infer" something in the future. If we oversimplify and compile a list of traits about "the world" as it was in the past that allowed a new genre or artist to flourish, AI could predict that in the future. It isn't like the paradigm shifts just happen in a vacuum. Granted there are probably millions of little things that lead to this, stuff like the shared experiences of an entire genera…
If you feed an AI a bunch of modern car designs and ask it to design a new car, it will design you something like a modern ford or honda/toyota, but it will never design something like a Cybertruck. Which I believe will be the next paradigm shift in the design of trucks (that has been super stale and stagnant for at least the past 20 years), but this is yet to be seen.
For an example with music that has already happened and became apparent - Kanye West's "808s and Heartbreak" album from late 00's. On release, it had very polarizing reviews, most of which were skewing towards "really weak and weird". Fast forward 10 years, most of hip-hop and pop music is directly influenced by that album, most of top 50 albums use similar patterns and methods used in that album, and critics have made a complete 180. So now 808s is hailed as one of the biggest (if not the biggest) paradigm changes and influences in music of the past decade as a whole, as well as the best album by Kanye, despite at the time being called the worst. Imo an AI trained on music of 00's that came before 808s would have never been able to come up with something like that, but it totally could've come up with another top 100 song using existing paradigms.
(alt version) And John Henry, steel driving man, felt that his heart was about to burst and saw that he would lose to the steam-powered rock drilling machine. So he said "fuck it, ain't worth it," dropped his hammer, and walked away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're thinking too much like a human. No, you're thinking too much like someone who understands chess but not Go. Suppose that we built an opening book with a trillion reasonable courses of action on it. Each one analyzed well. As you have discovered, you will only go a few ply into the game. And all of the positions that you will be directed towards will have only a small edge. Instead put a tiny fraction of the co…
fwiw, I'm with you. Excuse the gratuitous war analogy, but I suspect the approach of OP is akin to talking about which first 8 steps to take (north-east, SW, S) when going into battle -- it's such a small scope of the whole event that it's pointless, and talking about those first steps makes one seem naive to the actual holistic task
This means if you enter a hypothetical "Cyborg" Go competition (computer-assistance allowed), the majority of newbies will simply be playing LeelaZero #1 plays over and over again.
You don't need to build an exhaustive opening book covering all possible moves. You only need to pick say, the top 5 moves LeelaZero ever considers. If you spend ~16-bytes per position and store 1-trillion positions on a 16TB Hard Drive, you'll be able to exhaustively map the top5 moves LeelaZero considers into 17-ply.
From there, you pick the positions that LeelaZero thinks its winning in, but in actuality is losing. You have a map towards 1-trillion positions to choose from, and your opponent (if they only pick from the top5 best moves LeelaZero ever outputs) will walk into your trap.
---------
As long as your opponent picks the top 5-moves from LeelaZero, you'll have the map towards victory. I think you're severely underestimating the abilities of a simple, dumb, opening database.
This is about human drive and what's the point if the computer will always be better. In a way it makes the game a bit less fun because it somewhat kills the elusiveness of it all and the human aspect of men trying to surpass each others feats. If a man cannot beat a machine at a task where they are to compete directly, what's the point of trying at all if the machine will always be better?
> If a man cannot beat a machine, what's the point of trying at all if the machine will always be better? A machine still has no will or purpose. The point will be to point the machine to interesting avenues and problems.
I think this is a strange reason to retire and as the article points out it might also simply be due to the legal conflict he is currently in with the KBA. Chess engines have been defeating humans for 20+ years (and are overwhelmingly stronger for a long time), but that hasn't diminished the interest in competitive chess, because the human element of competition and struggle and deep fundamental appreciation for the…
> AlphaGo can play go but it cannot appreciate the beauty of the game On the contrary, appreciating the game is the core of what AlphaGo does. In order to search the tree of moves it learns how to play (expand search) and how to evaluate (cut off branches of search). I believe it might appreciate the game on a deeper level than humans, in its own unique way. Of course it can't appreciate the social aspect of the game…
Put another way, Chess is literally a matter of life and death for AlphaGo, because chess is all it knows. It has no exterior context for which chess is a metaphor.
While I can understand Lee Se-dol's frustration, I think there are better lessons to learn from Kasparov's acceptance after the Deep Blue vs Kasparov matches. Cyborg chess is the future of chess. Period. Chess players use computers to train themselves and explore openings in human-only settings, while programmers / cyborgs play correspondence chess. Go is not finished as a game. A new tool, MCTS + Neural nets, has be…
> Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of cell phones. I really like the way you put it. In isolation, humans today have essentially the same natural mental capacity we had 2000 years ago, but we've become part of a much bigger computer. A human brain 2000 years ago was a very isolated entity. Even in centers of learning in the classical era, the amount of knowledge one could tap into was v…
Just consider the fact that everyone thinks they are above average in compassion or intelligent and stuff that like that. Even if you scream in their face that "HUMAN OVERESTIMATE THEIR PLACE IN THE AVERAGE!!" they will still claim that they are in the 51% percentile.
If anything, technologies and networking have made human a lot more stupider in that its harder to climb against all the misinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm actually not sure if we have motorcycles that can accelerate faster than usain bolt. I know the blue fin tuna has more acceleration than any vehicle ever devised by humankind.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)