This isnt AI, for starters significant input was made by humans writing those programs. Its just like those AI powered go players, the AI may find patters but the code didnt learn to play GO from nothing, it had significant rules and understanding programmed.
Yes, you can't learn unless you have some built-in way to tell desirable things from undesirable things. That goes for all learning algorithms, whether it's AGZ or the built-in human one.
It probably wouldn't have made a big difference for AGZ if it wasn't told the rules, but was simply given an instant loss if it made an illegal move. If it was given absolutely nothing, though, of course it would learn absolutely nothing too.
My point which was obviously poorly made is the intelligence of AGZ is actually a test of the programming of the developers. If they make a mistake then it will be hurt and dumb or make mistakes. The only thing the computer program does is shift the data, its not learning, it sjust running the program.
You're right to hold the developers accountable. You're right to see it as an extension of what they want, not something that wants something in itself.
But you're wrong to say that makes it not learning. All learning is like this. Human brains are "just running our programs" too.
The decision to see humans as actually "wanting" something, and not merely mechanically moving towards it, is teleological. That doesn't mean it's wrong (indeed, it's right) but it can never be justified from experience alone.
> But you're wrong to say that makes it not learning. All learning is like this. Human brains are "just running our programs" too.
Thats true, but the 99% of the success of AGZ is because of the programmers, the learning part is hardly learning its just really fast and processing data and making decisions. My point is real learning would be actually learning go and figuring out the rules itself.
As I said, AGZ can probably do that just fine, as long as it has some signal telling it what to do.
They could have trained it on a version where it got an instant loss on an illegal move. Or even one where it had to print a legal move as letters to not get an instant loss (e.g. "a5"). But, again as I said, you have to give it the signal in SOME form.
Given that you have to encode what you want the learning algorithm to learn in some form, i.e. you have to decide what you want, you have to start somewhere - y
"Our reruns are better than theirs."
-- Nick at Nite
Not AI (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
AlphaGo Zero did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can't learn unless you have some built-in way to tell desirable things from undesirable things. That goes for all learning algorithms, whether it's AGZ or the built-in human one.
It probably wouldn't have made a big difference for AGZ if it wasn't told the rules, but was simply given an instant loss if it made an illegal move. If it was given absolutely nothing, though, of course it would learn absolutely nothing too.
Re:Not AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right to hold the developers accountable. You're right to see it as an extension of what they want, not something that wants something in itself.
But you're wrong to say that makes it not learning. All learning is like this. Human brains are "just running our programs" too.
The decision to see humans as actually "wanting" something, and not merely mechanically moving towards it, is teleological. That doesn't mean it's wrong (indeed, it's right) but it can never be justified from experience alone.
Howeve
Re: (Score:2)
Thats true, but the 99% of the success of AGZ is because of the programmers, the learning part is hardly learning its just really fast and processing data and making decisions. My point is real learning would be actually learning go and figuring out the rules itself.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, AGZ can probably do that just fine, as long as it has some signal telling it what to do.
They could have trained it on a version where it got an instant loss on an illegal move. Or even one where it had to print a legal move as letters to not get an instant loss (e.g. "a5"). But, again as I said, you have to give it the signal in SOME form.
Given that you have to encode what you want the learning algorithm to learn in some form, i.e. you have to decide what you want, you have to start somewhere - y