5 ms·
> ...the overall structure of the algorithm - MCTS, deep neural nets, reinforcement learning - is very general. It is general in the sense that humans can appl
by kerkeslager 11y ago
> ...the overall structure of the algorithm - MCTS, deep neural nets, reinforcement learning - is very general.
It is general in the sense that humans can apply those algorithms to different problems (and have been doing so for decades). It isn't general in the sense that we can't apply AlphaGo to other problems unmodified. AlphaGo can't even play chess badly. It is not really even a step toward strong AI. (Note that "strong AI" is a term with a specific meaning. [1])
> The other is that what you asked for is completely unreasonable.
That's tantamount to saying strong AI is unreasonable.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI
- versteegen 11y ago> That's tantamount to saying strong AI is unreasonable. No, what I said is that it's unreasonable to expect that strong AI would play better Go than whatever the contemporary state-of-the-art Go AI is. But stated like that, I'm not sure I can agree with my statement. Strong AI could design and implement its own specialised Go AI. How would you count that?!
- kerkeslager 11y agoYeah, that's an interesting case. My initial reaction is that I'd think of it as a tool that the AI was using. If a human used such a tool I'd consider it cheating at the game. But a self-modifying strong AI could integrate the specialized go AI into itself. If that is not considered cheating, should it be considered cheating for a human player to integrate tools into their physiology? Today it's pacemakers, why not a specialized go chip with a neural interface tomorrow? And this is assuming the strong AI even has a concept of a self separate from the software it controls; that separation might not even make sense. I think we might not be able to answer these questions until a strong AI emerges.