4 ms·
> but the computer has had much more training samples as Lee Sedol could process in his lifetime. That's not obvious at all. I don't think you appreciate how r
by aab0 11y ago
> but the computer has had much more training samples as Lee Sedol could process in his lifetime.
That's not obvious at all. I don't think you appreciate how rigorous and demanding the training of a Go world champion is, how utterly devoted to Go they need to be: http://lesswrong.com/lw/n8b/link_alphago_mastering_the_ancient_game_of_go/d2o5 http://lesswrong.com/lw/n8b/link_alphago_mastering_the_ancie...
- SilasX 11y agoThat's a good point, but it's still orders of magnitude below what a human -- even a devoted one -- could ever review. Of course, there are many ways you can do the comparison: Time to build: The AlphaGo team didn't have billions of years of evolutionary tinkering to work with in refining biological heuristic/learning systems. Hardware limits: though still more efficient at search than previous designs, AlphaGo still has a lot more storage space and inter-component bandwidth than a human brain, plus better latency. Will the algorithms improve to the point that they can perform well on an extremely restricted architecture?