[i]The Economist[/i]: $ in AI wrote:...The most important is whether AI will always depend on vast amounts of data... A competing vision of AI stresses simulations, in which machines teach themselves using synthetic data or in virtual environments........... [so she must be really intelligent and will take over the outside real world without needing any real-world data as well as triumphing over the inside world of a board game of limited depth].
Propaganda Works - You Know This
Except I think this is an example of economists not understanding other areas of science and mathematics. A misunderstanding thinking that "learn from zero" means having learned from NO data from the "real" world (in this case the limited definition of the game go). Other information about the real world, vast amounts of information, is indeed irrelevant to learning how to solve THIS problem << learn to play go very well >>
Yes, it turns out that the set of information needed (by alpaha go zero) turns out to be small, but in problems like this, discovering the minimalist set, the necessary and sufficient set, is one of the difficulties. The reason I said "blindness" on the part of the economists is that they don't relate this to THEIR problem. They imagine that they NEED vast amounts of information about the real world (to make their predictions) without seeing that the reason for that is that they don't know which bits of information from the real world are relevant and which are not. And that appearances can be deceptive.
Thus before being shown, we would have thought that alpha go zero would have needed more information << information we cannot see is redundant to the minimal set of information that is sufficient >>
They also do not see what the (generalized) process might be able to do. Given a problem and a PROPOSED minimalist set of information, can the neural net learn to solve the problem "from zero" --- with "from zero" meaning "from just THIS minimalist set of information". In which case that set of information IS a sufficient set.
Re: AlphaZero paper discussion (Mastering Go, Chess, and Sho
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:34 am
by Uberdude
Mike Novack wrote:Except I think this is an example of economists not understanding other areas of science and mathematics.
The Economist is a general newspaper (in magazine format), it's not actually written solely or indeed much by economists. (Or were you joking?)
In school we ask students to put it in their own words to prove that they’ve understood something, to show their work, justify their conclusion. <snip> And now we’re expecting that machines will be able to do the same thing.
(emphasis added)
When entity A (eg. student) tries to explain something to entity B (eg. teacher; or vice versa), the above makes an implicit but vital assumption that an explanation exists that B can digest.
This assumption may be true if A's understanding and computational power are roughly similar to B's, or even if A's (slightly) > B's.
But if A's >> B's, it's not so clear why it must be true.
Samples:
A: Einstein (at the publication of his relativity papers ); B: top physicists, general public (at that time; even today).
A: Feynman (on quantum mechanics); B: his dad, general public.
A: average child; B: cat.
A: AlphaZero; B: top pros.
Re: AlphaZero paper discussion (Mastering Go, Chess, and Sho
Concerns, yes, but not surprising, Deepmind probably did not find decent information on what is state of the art in Computer Shogi. As one cannot find decent software simply. You fight your way through Google translated japanese pages and end up finding GUIs appealing as software from the 90s. E.g., in Shogi, best I found the other day was ShogiGUI, which, by chess software standards, was still clunky retro style software. And you find like 3 people commenting on it on the internet. And first you do is tell it to install in english - and still get a japanese UI. So first thing to do is find the option o change language. Which is not an easy task.
Or Shogidokoro. Oh well, also like software from 1990. IMO Shogi software development is lightyears behind western chess. Go only lightmonths
In school we ask students to put it in their own words to prove that they’ve understood something, to show their work, justify their conclusion. <snip> And now we’re expecting that machines will be able to do the same thing.
(emphasis added)
I'm sorry, Dave.
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:44 am
by EdLee
I'm sorry, Dave.
Off topic:
CSM-101, HAL 2000, Frankenstein, ... the idea of a human created monster in literature or oral traditions goes back how far, and in which cultures ?
Re:
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:33 am
by Bill Spight
EdLee wrote:
I'm sorry, Dave.
Off topic:
CSM-101, HAL 2000, Frankenstein, ... the idea of a human created monster in literature or oral traditions goes back how far, and in which cultures ?
