5 ms·
> comparing AlphaGo Distributed to, e.g. CrazyStone, is to compare two distinct states of the art – performance given small computational power (and a small tea
by euyyn 11y ago
> comparing AlphaGo Distributed to, e.g. CrazyStone, is to compare two distinct states of the art – performance given small computational power (and a small team, for that matter) and performance given massive computational power and the efforts of over a dozen of the best AI researchers in the world.
I know the author probably doesn't have any stake on it, but defending that the state of the art should be categorized by the size of the team of researchers behind each product sounds like just being butt-hurt. "Look what this team accomplished with only two people" only compares the researchers, not the end results.
- Loic 11y agoI totally agree with you with respect to the size of the team, but I do think that the computational power is a very important factor. This is the cost factor, both for investment in hardware, power bill and maintenance of the "cluster". If you have a very large cluster, you do not have one program who won, but one program plus a team ensuring that the cluster is running and healthy against a single go player.
- nullc 11y agoI didn't read it that way. That authors' goal is towards assessing progress in the field. To some extent, adding more researchers is like adding more CPUs; fuel for an industrial process, which should be corrected for when trying to gauge the rate of return on those investments at the current level of technology.
- euyyn 11y ago> when trying to gauge the rate of return on those investments Exactly, when trying to gauge your team. Not the end product they produced.